On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Addressing Domestic Violence Across Practice Areas 2016

Released on: Feb. 11, 2016
Running Time: 03:11:05

Running Time Segment Title Faculty Format
[01:10:06] Trauma Informed Lawyering Jennifer C Friedman ~ Managing Director, Center for Legal Services, My Sisters’ Place
Charlotte A Watson ~ Executive Director, New York State Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts, New York State Unified Court System
Ruth Forero ~ Clinical Consultant, Supervisor and Psychotherapist
Angela Yeboah ~ Deputy Director, Bronx Legal Project, Bronx Family Justice Center, Sanctuary for Families
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[00:57:43] The Expert Witness Dorchen A Leidholdt ~ Director, Center for Battered Women's Legal Services, Sanctuary for Families
Carmen M Rey ~ Deputy Director, Immigration Intervention Project, Sanctuary for Families
Luz Towns-Miranda ~ Psychologist
Deborah A Kaplan ~ Statewide Coordinating Judge for Family Violence Cases, The Supreme Court of the State of New York
Kim Susser ~ Director, Matrimonial and Family Law Unit, New York Legal Assistance Group
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:03:16] Evidence Michelle Kaminsky ~ Chief, Domestic Violence Bureau, Kings County District Attorney’s Office
Mary R Davis ~ Editor, Lawyer's Manual on Domestic Violence, 6th Edition
Elyse Lazansky ~ Town Justice, Town of North Castle
Betsy C Tsai ~ Co-Director, Courtroom Advocates Project (CAP), Sanctuary for Families, Center for Battered Women’s Legal Services
On-Demand MP3 MP4

This program will explore the legal and practical challenges of representing victims of domestic violence. Experienced practitioners in the law and in social or counseling services will share their practical strategies for addressing common challenges across disciplines.  The practical insights that will be shared will be useful to legal practitioners and service providers in a variety of practice areas.

This program is designed for New York State judges, court attorneys, law clerks, government lawyers, and attorneys in private or public interest practice interested in learning about the problem of domestic violence and strategies for dealing with litigation challenges.


Lecture Topics [Total time 03:11:05]

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


  • Trauma Informed Lawyering [01:10:06]
    Jennifer C. Friedman, Charlotte A. Watson, Angela Yeboah, Dr. Ruth Forero
  • The Expert Witness [00:57:43]
    Hon. Deborah A. Kaplan, Dorchen A. Leidholdt, Kim Susser, Dr. Luz Towns-Miranda, Carmen M. Rey
  • Evidence [01:03:16]
    Mary Rothwell Davis, Michelle Kaminsky, Betsy C. Tsai, Hon. Elyse Lazansky

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Lawyer’s Manual on Domestic Violence, 6th Edition: Interviewing and Assisting Domestic Violence Survivors
    B.J. Cling, Mary Rothwell Davis, Dorchen A. Leidholdt, Charlotte A. Watson
  • Parental Alienation Syndrome
    Kim Susser, Joan S. Meier
  • Preparing DV Survivors for a Custody Evaluation
    Kim Susser, Joyanna Silberg, Elizabeth Samson
  • Excerpt from the Matrimonial Commission Report to the Chief Judge of the State of New York: The Role and Appointment of Experts: Forensic Experts (February 2006)
    Kim Susser
  • Selected Cases
    Kim Susser
  • Lawyer’s Manual on Domestic Violence, 6th edition: Litigating Family Offense Proceedings
    Betsy C. Tsai, Nicole Fidler, Betty Weinberg Ellerin, Mary Rothwell Davis, Charlotte A. Watson, Dorchen A. Leidholdt, Michelle Kaminsky
  • Lawyer’s Manual on Domestic Violence, 6th edition: Prosecuting a Domestic Violence Case: Looking Beyond the Victim’s Testimony
    Betsy C. Tsai, Elizabeth Cronin, Betty Weinberg Ellerin, Charlotte A. Watson, Dorchen A. Leidholdt, Mary Rothwell Davis, Michelle Kaminsky
  • Putting Forfeiture to Work
    Sarah M. Buel, Betsy C. Tsai, Mary Rothwell Davis, Michelle Kaminsky, Betty Weinberg Ellerin
  • Keep Calm and Understand Elonis v. United States
    Teresa M. Garvey, Michelle Kaminsky, Mary Rothwell Davis, Betty Weinberg Ellerin, Betsy C. Tsai

Presentation Material


  • Lawyer’s Manual on Domestic Violence, Representing the Victim, 6th Edition
    Hon. Betty Weinberg Ellerin
  • Lawyer’s Manual on Domestic Violence, Representing the Victim, 6th Edition
    Charlotte A. Watson
  • Lawyer’s Manual on Domestic Violence, Representing the Victim, 6th Edition
    Dorchen A. Leidholdt
  • Lawyer’s Manual on Domestic Violence, Representing the Victim, 6th Edition
    Mary Rothwell Davis
Chairperson(s)
Hon. Betty Weinberg Ellerin ~ Chair, New York State Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts, New York State Unified Court System (Ret.); Senior Counsel, Alston & Bird LLP
Speaker(s)
Mary Rothwell Davis ~ Editor, Lawyer's Manual on Domestic Violence, 6th Edition
Dr. Ruth Forero ~ Clinical Consultant, Supervisor and Psychotherapist
Jennifer C. Friedman ~ Managing Director, Center for Legal Services, My Sisters’ Place
Michelle Kaminsky ~ Chief, Domestic Violence Bureau, Kings County District Attorney’s Office
Hon. Deborah A. Kaplan ~ Statewide Coordinating Judge for Family Violence Cases, The Supreme Court of the State of New York
Hon. Elyse Lazansky ~ Town Justice, Town of North Castle
Dorchen A. Leidholdt ~ Director, Center for Battered Women's Legal Services, Sanctuary for Families
Carmen M. Rey ~ Deputy Director, Immigration Intervention Project, Sanctuary for Families
Kim Susser ~ Director, Matrimonial and Family Law Unit, New York Legal Assistance Group
Dr. Luz Towns-Miranda ~ Psychologist
Betsy C. Tsai ~ Co-Director, Courtroom Advocates Project (CAP), Sanctuary for Families, Center for Battered Women’s Legal Services
Charlotte A. Watson ~ Executive Director, New York State Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts, New York State Unified Court System
Angela Yeboah ~ Deputy Director, Bronx Legal Project, Bronx Family Justice Center, Sanctuary for Families
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.

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 6 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 “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of non-traditional 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 10 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.


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 cleadministrator@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 cleadministrator@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.

IIEI Recertification:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may qualify for the Continuing Education Units (CEUs) necessary to fulfill the Certified U.S. Export Compliance Officer® (CUSECO) continuing education requirements.

 

Related Items

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Addressing Domestic Violence Across Practice Areas 2016 Betty Weinberg Ellerin, New York State Unified Court System (Ret.); Senior Counsel, Alston & Bird LLP
 
Print Share Email

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

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2016 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.