UPDATE: Trial Boom: People v. Booth is now CLE accredited in 4 states – California, Colorado, Florida, & Illinois for 8 general CLE + 2 Ethics CLE.

Currently, Trial Boom is CLE accredited in 4 states. Click the state below to see more information regarding CLE accreditation in YOUR state:

• • California
  • Colorado
  • Florida
  • Illinois

• GET TRIAL BOOM HERE

 

General CLE Accreditation Information

For the CLE version of Trial Boom, we provide you with the ability to generate a CLE certificate that shows how much progress you have made, as well as how many credits you have earned. This certificate has a unique identifier code associated with it, so state CLE providers can verify the veracity of the certificates. More information about generating the CLE certificates will be published soon.

The CLE accreditation for Trial Boom generally works as follows:

• • • Each completed Exam in the case (People v. Booth) is worth 1 CLE credit. If you complete all 8 exams, you will earn 8 CLE credits.
    • Each completed module in Ethics Boom is worth 1/3 Ethics CLE credits. If you complete all 6 modules, you will earn 2 Ethics CLE credits.

   

  CALIFORNIA

  Activity Name: Trial Boom: People v. Booth

  Provider #: 18845

  Accredited for 10 participatory CLE credits, including 2 Ethics CLE for completion of Ethics Boom Vol. 1.

  For information about California CLE, please visit the California Bar CLE Homepage.

   

  COLORADO

  Course #: 764533

  Accredited for 10 home-study CLE credits, including 2 Ethics CLE for completion of Ethics Boom Vol. 1.

  For more information about Colorado CLE, please visit the Colorado Bar CLE Homepage.

   

  FLORIDA

  Course #:  1804825N

  Accredited for 10 CLE credits, including 2 Ethics CLE for completion of Ethics Boom Vol. 1.

  For more information about Florida CLE, please visit the Florida Bar CLE Homepage.

   

  ILLINOIS

  Activity Name: Trial Boom: People v. Booth (No course or provider #)

  Accredited for 10 CLE credits, including 2 Professional Responsibility (legal ethics) CLE credits for completion of Ethics Boom Vol. 1.

  For more information about Illinois CLE, please visit the Illinois Bar CLE Homepage.

   

  BUY TRIAL BOOM!

  For any questions or concerns regarding CLE accreditation of Trial Boom, please contact us at contact@trialboom.com or call our main line at 1-888-585-BOOM.

By: Diana A.  Sada, Trial Attorney, Evidence Lecturer

Editor: David C. Schott, Trial Attorney,  Professor of Law

“OBJECTION!”  It’s a favorite word among some lawyers but also detested by many. Objections are important to the success of your case because they are the medium for enforcing the Rules of Evidence. For that reason, learning objections is equally as important as learning the Rules of Evidence. However, one skill many lawyers struggle with is mastering when to object.  Additionally, many lawyers mistakenly lodge frivolous objections for an improper agenda.  

To that end, there are two principles that every trial lawyer should adopt to be successful and avoid adverse consequences.  

 

Principle 1: Only lodge strategic objections that help your case.

The practical application of the Rules of Evidence in jury trials is more lax than the strict application of the Rules. It is crucial to understand when opposing counsel is skipping a foundation question that matters, which you should object to, versus one that does not, which you should not object to.  

For example, assume opposing counsel started his direct examination of a witness with the following:

Q: Ma’am, do you remember Aug 31, 2016?

A: Yes. Very clearly.

Q: How was the weather that day?

A: It was snowing and freezing.  

Can you object? Yes. Technically, the second question and answer are both objectionable for lack of foundation. The question did not establish that the witness went outside the house that day, that she watched the news, nor that she looked outside the window. The answer lacks foundation because she did not testify that she knows what the “freezing” point is or that she saw/felt snow.  

Should you object? NO! This is not a strategic objection, as the missing foundation is immaterial. Forcing opposing counsel to lay proper foundation would turn a two-question segment into an eight-question segment with no benefit or harm to either side. This will frustrate the jury at your expense. They might perceive you as disruptive even though the question/answer are technically objectionable.  

The skill of learning when to object can truly be acquired upon deciphering the difference between a technical objection and a strategic objection. Aside from learning how to forgo objecting to immaterial matters as outlined above, when you learn the difference between technical and strategic objections, you may find yourself cleverly forgoing objections on substantive and material testimony in order to help your case.

For example: Assume you are prosecuting an assault. The Defendant had previously been violent toward the victim, but you were unable to convince the judge to allow you to admit those prior instances of conduct per FRE 404(b) in this trial. Assume that during the investigation of this crime, the Defendant told your responding officer: “Why are you arresting me? I did not hurt her! I would never hurt her.”

On direct examination of your responding officer, you do not elicit that statement (even though you could per FRE 801(d)(2)(A) – opposing party’s statement). On cross examination, opposing counsel is hoping that statement could paint a positive image of his client. Therefore, opposing counsel unwisely asks your officer to confirm that his client told the officer that he would “never hurt” the victim.  

Can you object? Yes. The question is objectionable. Unlike you, who could admit evidence of the Defendant’s statements per FRE 801(d)(2)(A), defense counsel generally cannot admit statements of his own client as they are hearsay. NOTE: this may not be improper character evidence because it is being introduced by the accused in a criminal trial and is arguably a pertinent character trait, which is allowed per FRE 404(a)(2)(A).

Should you object? NO! Opposing counsel is doing you a favor by “opening the door” to the prior violent offenses that you were prohibited from eliciting. You can now rebut this evidence per FRE 404(a)(2)(A) and various case law governing the principle of “opening the door.” Your ability to strategically forgo this objection to hearsay helped your case and hurt opposing counsel’s.  

 

Principle 2: If it is NOT objectionable, do NOT object.

Some lawyers believe lodging an objection is the proper mechanism for slowing the momentum of opposing counsel when opposing counsel is in the midst of collecting damaging evidence to their case. First, that philosophy often backfires. Lodging an objection naturally draws attention to the testimony objected to, which may result in the jury paying more, as opposed to less, attention to that testimony.  

The more important consideration for not objecting to a non-objectionable question/answer is your license! Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1 (which tracks ABA Model Rule 3.1 verbatim) provides, in pertinent part:

A lawyer shall not … assert or controvert an issue [in a proceeding], unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension … of existing law.

Lodging an objection for the purposes of slowing opposing counsel down knowing you have no legal basis for the objection violates the oath you took as a lawyer! Before you object, make sure the question/answer is at least technically objectionable – even if the objection is not wise strategically.  

NOTE: Counsel may waive certain rights in appeal by waiving objections at trial. For that reason, irrespective of the principles above, you should always keep the record you want to create for appeal in mind while you decide whether to strategically forgo a proper objection.

Trial Boom® teaches you how to identify objections regardless of whether they are strategic. In other words, as you use the courtroom simulator, it is possible that a question may arise, which the simulator expects you to identify as objectionable, but one that you would not otherwise object to at trial. It is necessary, however, to understand the entire scope of objectionable questions for you to begin selecting strategic ones. For that reason, Trial Boom arms you with the ability to learn the broad scope of objections, which you can then couple with your experience and case analysis to determine which of those objections you would actually raise at trial.  

Download Trial Boom today for FREE!

How Trial Skills Can Help Your Case Even If You Never Make It To Trial

By: Diana A.  Sada, Trial Attorney, Evidence Lecturer

Editor: David C. Schott, Trial Attorney,  Professor of Law

It is true.  Most cases settle.  Most cases never go to trial. Most lawyers never see the inside of a courtroom. So why should you learn how to present a case for trial? Why should you spend so much time learning how to effectively cross examine a witness, properly lay foundation, or conduct an efficient direct examination? Why shouldn’t you, instead, focus on learning how to write better, negotiate better, mediate better, and arbitrate better if that is where the vast majority of your legal career will be spent?

The obvious answer is: BECAUSE YOU ARE A LAWYER!

 

And, with that comes the possibility that one of your cases may end up in trial.  However, with statistics against that likelihood, is it a waste of time to invest in learning trial advocacy skills? No. Because possessing trial skills strengthens your case whether or not the case proceeds to trial.

Here are three reasons why you should learn these crucial skills irrespective of statistics:

(1) If you do NOT know how to do a trial, your opposing counsel will take you there. 

Your inability to do a trial is not going to remain a secret. Your opposing counsel will take that into consideration in evaluating whether to accept your last offer. What incentive does your opposing counsel have to take your offer if he or she knows that you will fold on the courthouse steps because you are too scared to go inside?

Additionally, trial skills are as valuable as a large litigation budget. For example, if you are a plaintiff’s lawyer and your client has a small legal budget (or you for that matter), your opposing counsel may depose everyone and their neighbors simply to hike up costs and force you to settle for pennies on the dollar. If, however, your opposing counsel believes your financial health allows you to take the case to the Supreme Court and back, he is more likely to disengage from those tactics. In this example, you did not necessarily use your healthy budget. Rather, the healthy budget helped your case.

Trial skills play the same role. You may not have to use them, but the mere possession of those skills makes opposing counsel wary of rolling the dice at trial. Your reputation as a “force to be reckoned with” inside the courtroom will make opposing counsel think twice before he turns down YOUR settlement offer months before trial.

(2) If you do NOT know how to do a trial, how can you fully advise your clients on how to avoid one?

When you first accept a case, you should be evaluating its strength without letting emotion cloud your evidentiary filter. Your client could have been wronged in a very egregious way. However, if, for some reason, those facts are inadmissible, failure to foresee that inadmissibility may lead to misevaluating the strength of your case, risking your client’s time and money. When you first accept a case, you need to think about the ultimate shape of that case in front of a jury after it has gone through the filters of the Rules of Evidence. Playing Devil’s advocate and discussing the weaknesses and strengths of proceeding to trial will allow you and your client to make a well-informed decision.

For example, a client comes to your office and says: “This company ruined my life.  They know that they should have fixed that staircase before I fell and broke my entire body. The reason I know that is because they fixed the stairs immediately after my accident. Not only that, but this company’s owner is a thief. No one likes him. So clearly, I have a great case. Right, Mr. Lawyer?”

You might think: “How can a jury possibly find in that thief’s favor and not in favor of my client?” If you know the Rules of Evidence and how to present a case for trial, you know that you have to look beyond the actions of the “bad guy” in evaluating your case because chances are, many of those facts may not rise to the level of admissible evidence.

Finally, even if your practice is transactional in nature, such as drafting contracts or wills, understanding trial and the Rules of Evidence allows you to comprehend triable issues. That will help you better advise your clients and properly safeguard them from future litigation. After all, it is imperative for the architect to know how the stonemasons actually lay the stone.

(3) Knowing how to present a case for trial will organically strengthen your skills in all other stages of the litigation.

Presenting a case before a judge or jury at trial is an all-encompassing skill. Arguing your client’s case in closing is a skill that forces you to synthesize and simplify facts with complex legal theories. Just as a captain knowing their ultimate destination assists them in plotting each leg in their journey, a trial attorney knowing how to present a case AT trial strengthens his or her ability to navigate the channels leading to that trial. This, in turn, can help you argue your next big Daubert hearing or better draft that motion for summary judgment. Cross-examination can help you develop testimony at your next big deposition with a combative deponent. Knowing objections can help you negotiate at mediation when your opposing counsel (who does not know evidence like you) hangs his entire case on inadmissible evidence.

These are only three of MANY reasons why you should learn how to present a case for trial. It can only help you. So do yourself a favor: learn the Rules of Evidence, and get comfortable in the courtroom.

 

---

 

Check out the Trial Boom Courtroom Simulator to improve your knowledge of the rules of evidence and hone your trial advocacy skills. And earn CLE while you’re at it!

 

Author: Diana A. Sada, Trial Attorney & Evidence Lecturer

Editor: David C. Schott, Trial Attorney & Professor of Law

---

Download the “Reference Material to Rules Are Rules” HERE.

---

If you are a civil practitioner, should you approach learning the Rules of Evidence differently than your criminal practitioner counterparts? Should you bother listening to that criminal practitioner giving you advice about the Rules of Evidence?

The short answer is, “yes.”

One of the biggest misconceptions lawyers have is the assumption that the Rules of Evidence are as distinct as the Rules of Civil v. Criminal procedure.  For that reason, many assume that learning evidence by using a criminal fact pattern (such as Trial Boom’s first case, The People v. J.W. Booth) is a narrow exercise if they are civil practitioners.  To the contrary, the principles behind the Rules of Evidence are applied very similarly in civil and criminal cases.  If you learn the application of evidence in either the civil or criminal arena, you can use that knowledge interchangeably with only a few distinctions to keep in mind.

Three-quarters of the rules make NO distinction between criminal and civil cases.

Many of the rules that do make distinctions are intuitive, while others are simply inconsequential distinctions for the purpose of trial (e.g. compensation of experts).

Additionally, many rules do not actually distinguish the application of the rules in civil and criminal cases; rather, those rules apply exclusively in criminal OR civil cases.

---

Here is a breakdown of the Rules: 

There are 11 articles in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Within those 11 articles, there are 68 rules total with various exceptions and/or exemptions. Of all those rules, only 17 create distinctions or apply exclusively to civil or criminal.

That means 51 out of the 68 rules apply identically across the board. 

Some differences may exist in how case law applies the rules. Nonetheless, 51 of the rules themselves apply similarly, irrespective of whether the case is civil or criminal.

So what does this mean? Rules are Rules!

Here are two examples to illustrate:

Example #1

Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(1) prohibits the introduction of a person’s character or character trait to prove “propensity” (i.e., that the person is acting in conformity with that trait on a particular occasion). If you look at the language of the rule, you will notice that 404(a)(2) is a subsection that applies only in the criminal context. Under this subsection, a criminal defendant is permitted to introduce evidence of a pertinent character trait in a criminal case. While this subsection does not apply in civil cases, the prohibition of using character evidence, which is the essence of the rule, applies similarly in both types of cases. Additionally, knowledge of the entirety of the rule, even if you only practice civil, comes in handy when dealing with opposing counsel who may not be an evidence wiz like you.  In the event opposing counsel is attempting to use that subsection in a civil case, your knowledge gives you the tools to lodge a well-articulated objection.

Example #2

Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1) prohibits the introduction of instances of conduct to prove character.  This prohibition is applicable in BOTH criminal and civil cases. Thus, learning 404(b) in a criminal context helps you in the civil context and vice versa.  The distinction between the two types of cases is that 404(b)(2) places additional requirements in criminal cases relating to notice.

Generally, Rule 404(b) is not frequently used in civil cases because issues such as motive, identity, intent, etc. are not usually elements of civil claims or defenses.  However, nothing in 404(b) prohibits its use in a civil case. In fact, it can often be used in civil cases involving intentional torts, or cases where notice, ownership, existence of a dangerous situation, or other claims are in play.

Assume you are trying to learn this rule by reading a criminal case involving a charge for reckless driving causing injuries. In that case, Mr. Smith hit a pedestrian in a school zone while he was speeding. Investigating Mr. Smith’s background reveals that he had previously been cited for speeding in that same school zone about one month before the accident. You also learn that the prosecutor successfully argued for the inclusion of this prior bad driving pursuant to 404(b)(2). The prosecutor wanted to use that prior bad driving to prove that Mr. Smith knew this was a school zone. In other words, it was not being introduced to show that because Mr. Smith was a bad driver before, he was a bad driver in this occasion. Rather, it was used for knowledge.  Analysis of these facts in the civil context is nearly the same.

To illustrate, turn the fact pattern above into a negligence case where the family of the injured pedestrian is suing Mr. Smith for damages. That family’s lawyer (you) can use nearly the same argument as the prosecutor to introduce Mr. Smith’s prior speeding ticket to show he knew this was a school zone.

The purpose of the illustrations above is to show you that the rules and the analysis behind them apply similarly in both types of cases.  If you read the criminal fact pattern involving Mr. Smith, you can now argue 404(b) regardless of whether you become a prosecutor or a personal injury lawyer.

Nonetheless, it is wise to glance at the rules and know exactly how they apply depending on your role in the courtroom. To help you, we have prepared a document titled “Reference Material to Rules Are Rules.” All the distinctions are conveniently compiled into this one source.

Trial Boom’s The People v. John Wilkes Booth is a criminal case.  However, as you may have gathered, irrespective of whether you learn your evidence using a criminal case or a civil case, you will benefit in any practice you pursue.

After all, Rules are Rules.

 

Version 1.1 is here! After listening to your feedback over the past several weeks since we launched Version 1.0 of Trial Boom, we’ve made some updates to Trial Boom for Version 1.1.

First and foremost, the release of Version 1.1 comes with a FREE Demo. Before you decide to purchase the full version of Trial Boom, you now have the opportunity to test out a free demo of Case #1: The People v. John Wilkes Booth. You can play through the first portion of the Direct Examination of Mary Todd Lincoln from both the prosecution and defense perspectives to get a feel for the game mechanics behind Trial Boom. If you’re not a current “Trial Boomer,” please check out our Free Demo!

We also made a major update to the legal content in Version 1.1, specifically to the “Sidebars.” For those who have yet to download and play Trial Boom, the “Sidebars” are question- and answer-specific explanations that explain why certain objection bases are proper or improper. Version 1.0 included a generous amount of Sidebar explanations, but with the release of Version 1.1, we now have almost 100% of Case #1 covered with Sidebar explanations. What this means for you is that if you are ever wondering why a certain objection was overruled or sustained, you can count on having a Sidebar explanation available for that question or answer. At Trial Boom, we are constantly working to improve the educational value of our software, and by expanding the Sidebars, we are hoping to bring our users more clarity and access to more materials that explain the rationale behind the judge’s rulings.

Our Dev Team also squashed some lingering bugs from Version 1.0, so the animations, graphics, and gameplay are a bit smoother and bug-free in Version 1.1.

Lastly, we made some key changes to our Privacy Policy in light of the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Data Scandal. Trial Boom is committed to protecting your data, and thus, we do not gather your personal information to sell to advertisers or other third-party organizations. In our updated Privacy Policy, we explain that our limited collection of user data is for two internal purposes: (1) Digital Rights Management and (2) Quality Control. Regarding digital rights management, we want to protect the integrity of the Trial Boom software and ensure that users are not abusing/sharing their login information. Regarding quality control, we collect statistics of usage and in-app activity, so that we can better identify any potential bugs in Trial Boom, as well as determine where certain aspects of Trial Boom may need further legal content explanations. Trial Boom does not share or sell your information with any third-parties, advertisers, or organizations.

We’re excited about the release of Version 1.1, but we’re even more excited for what’s to come in the next release of Trial Boom! To stay up-to-date on all the latest and greatest Trial Boom news, please subscribe to our newsletter.

As always, if you have any questions or comments about Trial Boom in general or Version 1.1, feel free to leave a comment below or drop us a note at contact@trialboom.com.

Boom!

Trial Boom’s first case is based on the fictitious 1st-degree murder trial of John Wilkes Booth. What if J.W. Booth was captured and put on trial for the 1865 assassination of President Abraham Lincoln?

President Lincoln’s assassination was one of America’s most tragic events, and the horrors of the night of April 14, 1865, still echo throughout our souls and this country. The creation of The People v. John Wilkes Booth is by no means an attempt to exonerate Booth for this horrific murder. However, conspiracy theories and discrepancies between what actually occurred and what we actually choose to believe make for interesting and highly educational courtroom presentations.

As the creators of this case, we obviously intend no disrespect to the families, loved ones, and patriots who were affected and continue to be affected by the murder of President Lincoln. Indeed, the exact opposite is intended. After going through this case, we hope that lawyers, academics, students, and others alike will be inspired to research the life and legacy of our beloved 16th U.S. President, as well as the tragic events surrounding his assassination on April 14, 1865.

As President Lincoln once said, “Upon the subject of education . . . I can only say that I view it as the most important subject which we as people can be engaged in.” Enjoy!

The Trial Boom team is made up of highly talented software developers, seasoned trial attorneys, and law school professors. One of our core values is to embrace interdisciplinary collaboration and learning, and we do this by constantly harmonizing the tech and legal worlds to create powerful and entertaining products, like the Trial Boom courtroom simulator.

Meet the veteran trial attorneys and law school professors behind all of the legal content below!

 

Professor David C. Schott, Chief Legal Education Officer (CLEO)

Attorney, Colorado & Illinois

Since July 2008, David Schott has served as a full-time faculty member, Professor of the Practice, and Director of the Center for Advocacy at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. Under his leadership, the Center for Advocacy has risen to be consistently recognized and ranked as one of the Top 12 law school advocacy programs in the United States (per USNWR).

In his capacity on the law school faculty, David has taught Evidence, Advanced Evidence, Trial Advocacy I, II and III courses, serves as the head coach for the law school’s National Trial Team, and has presented at numerous seminars, roundtables, and educational events. David is also the National Evidence Lecturer for Themis Bar Review.

David graduated with Dean’s List Honors from Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. David received his Juris Doctorate Degree with Moot Court Honors from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

David practiced law as a full-time trial attorney from 1990 to 2009 during which time he presented 36 jury trials to verdict. David began his legal career in Cook County, Illinois (Chicago), where David completed a four-year tenure with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office. David then served as General Counsel for an international development company, where under David’s litigation management, the company prevailed in its $33 million prosecution of a contract and trademark infringement claims in Federal District Court. In 1997, David immigrated to Denver, Colorado where he opened his law practice. David continues to practice in an Of Counsel capacity to this day. David’s Federal and State Court practice has consisted of civil trial and domestic relations litigation. David has also served as business counsel, operations advisor, Board of Directors advisor, and trial/litigation counsel, to a range of entities.

In 2005, before assuming a full-time faculty position at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law in 2009, David began serving on the Adjunct Faculty of the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. David has also served on the faculty of the National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA), the Constitutional Rights Foundation, the National Institute of Legal Education, and has taught management, ethics, and negotiation at the collegiate level. From 1999 to 2008, David served in a volunteer capacity as head coach for the Regis Jesuit and Bear Creek High School Mock Trial Teams.

With a passion for helping youth, in 2004, David established The Providence Foundation of Law & Leadership with the mission of providing scholarship funding to high school students who display an interest in the justice system and dedication to their community. In 2007, David received the Charles B. Dillion Award of Merit for his work in public service. David has also been recognized by Denver’s ABC affiliate, KMGH, as an “Everyday Hero.”

 

Brad Moloney, Legal Content & Design Consultant

Attorney, Colorado

Brad Moloney is a deputy district attorney for the First Judicial District Attorney’s Office of Colorado, where he has litigated thousands of cases and presented dozens of jury trials. Since 2016, Brad has served as a member of the training committee for the Colorado District Attorneys’ Council (CDAC). He frequently provides CLE accredited presentations for CDAC on topics including evidence, objections, voir dire, ethics, mental health defenses, as well as trial strategy and practice.

Since 2012, Brad has served as an adjunct faculty member at the University of Denver Sturm College of law, where he teaches in the areas of trial practice and evidence. Additionally, he is a frequent guest speaker at the law school on trial practice and related topics. Since 2013, Brad has served as an adjunct instructor at the Red Rocks Community College, where he provides legal education to law enforcement recruits.

Brad attended law school at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, where he served as president of the Student Bar Association and was a member of the National Trial Team. He graduated Order of St. Ives in 2008.

 

Diana Sada, Legal Content & Design Consultant

Attorney, Colorado & Florida

Diana Sada is a trial attorney who works for the 18^th Judicial District Attorney’s Office as a Deputy District Attorney. Prior to becoming a prosecutor, Diana focused exclusively on complex civil litigation including construction defect and eminent domain. She also handled various employment and family law matters during her tenure as a civil practitioner, making her well-versed in multiple areas of the practice of law.

Diana earned her Bachelor of Science degree with honors from Rollins College, a liberal arts school in Winter Park, Florida. She then went on to earn her Juris Doctorate from the University of Denver, Sturm College of Law where she was named the law school’s “Best Advocate” as she earned the Championship in Denver Law’s crown jewel trial advocacy tournament, the Hoffman Cup.

Since the inception of her legal career, Diana has been passionate about trial work and has aggressively pursued that realm of law, both in the civil and criminal worlds. Her passion translated into becoming a mentor and an adjunct faculty member at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law when she began teaching Advanced Trial Advocacy and related courses.  Diana also co-directed multiple advocacy tournaments where she hosted and taught law students basic and advanced evidence and various trial advocacy related concepts and skills. Her passion towards teaching led her to focus almost exclusively on educating and organizing programs at the law school for a period of time in her career when she also organized multiple CLE events for local practitioners.

Diana is licensed in the States of Colorado and Florida and in the United States District Courts of Colorado, Middle District of Florida, and Southern District of Florida.