Protect Your Identity: Don’t Get Phished!

It’s Cyber Security Awareness Month. Do you know how to protect your identity online?
“Phishing” – the act of targeting victims via email in the hopes of spreading viruses and gathering personal information – can happen to anyone. Cybercriminals have become quite savvy in their attempts to lure people into clicking on links or opening phony email attachments. Online phishing attacks can not only spread computer viruses, but they can pose a significant risk for identity theft.
Better Business Bureau has joined with the National Cyber Security Alliance’s STOP. THINK. CONNECT. campaign to recommend the following tips to avoid falling for an email phishing scam:
Be on your toes. Only open emails, attachments, and links from people you know. Use anti-virus software regularly and enhance email filters to block threats. Watch out for unsolicited emails that contain misspellings or grammatical errors.

Don’t believe what you see. It’s easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites, and make emails appear to come from a different sender.

Avoid sharing. Don’t reveal personal or financial information in an email, and do not respond to email solicitations for this information. This includes following links sent in email. Be wary of any urgent instructions to take specified action such as "Click on the link or your account will be closed."
Pay attention to a website's URL. Hover over any links to see where they lead. Malicious websites may look identical to a legitimate site, but the URL may use a variation in spelling or a different – but similar – domain.
If you are unsure whether an email request is legitimate, try to verify it by contacting the company directly. Contact the company using information provided on an account statement, not information provided in an email. Information about known phishing attacks is available online from groups such as the Anti-Phishing Working Group. Report phishing to APWG.
Keep a clean machine. Having the latest operating system, software, web browsers, anti-virus protection and apps are the best defenses against viruses, malware, and other online threats.

Courtesy of the BBB

Court of Appeal Announces Destruction of Records

Fourth Appellate District Announces Destruction of Old Court Records

San Diego—The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One (San Diego) has announced its intention to destroy some of its criminal, juvenile, and civil records under Rule 10.1028(c) of the California Rules of Court.
All cases designated in records transfer lists 00042, 00047 and 00048.
These cases encompass criminal cases preserved for a period longer than 20 years and civil cases preserved for a period longer than 10 years. A copy of cases on this list can be sent by sending an email to kevin.lane@jud.ca.gov.
Anyone who knows of a reason why any of the above cases should be retained, whether for historical or other purposes, should notify Kevin J. Lane, Clerk/Administrator. The reasons for retention should be in writing, should be received by the court by Friday, November 1, 2013, and should be addressed to:

Mr. Kevin J. Lane, Clerk/Administrator
Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District
750 B Street, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92101

Online Ethics Course for Judicial Candidates Launches

Online Ethics Course for Judicial Candidates Launches Course is mandatory for all judicial candidates SAN FRANCISCO—California judges and lawyers running for judicial office must take a new online judicial ethics course within 60 days of filing for office, creating a campaign committee, or receiving a campaign contribution. The mandatory judicial ethics course for judicial candidates went online this week. The course was developed by a working group of justices, judges, and lawyers after the Supreme Court adopted the mandatory rule—along with other changes to the California Code of Judicial Ethics—almost a year ago. “The Supreme Court changed the rules to promote and enhance public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and to provide guidance on the ethical obligations and responsibilities of those running for judicial office,” said Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye. “I am particularly pleased with the collaboration that produced this course—an effort that involved the California Judges Association, the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics, and the State Bar of California, as well as crucial support and expertise provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts’ Center for Judiciary Education and Research.” The chair of the working group, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Paul A. Bacigalupo, said the course is designed to give candidates a practical understanding of judicial canons and laws, rules, and regulations. The course will help candidates run a campaign consistent with the Code of Judicial Ethics, and in the case of lawyers who are judicial candidates, with the Rules of Professional Conduct that govern lawyers. “The course illustrates how judicial campaigns are fundamentally different from political races,” said Judge Bacigalupo. “For example, judicial candidates may be disciplined by the Commission for Judicial Performance for failing to adequately supervise campaign staff or disclose campaign contributions.” Both the course and the rule that made it mandatory for all judicial candidates were recommendations made by the Commission for Impartial Courts, which was created in 2007 by then Chief Justice Ronald M. George. “The commission rightly pointed out that California has one of the best judicial selection systems in the country,” said Judge Bacigalupo. “But, like anything else, it could always use improvement, and the commission made recommendations to do just that. This new rule and the online course will help judicial candidates adhere to the highest ethical standards and, I hope, demonstrate to others that judges and justices strive to ensure fairness and impartiality for all parties and persons using the courts.” - See more at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/23733.htm#sthash.NiEHZMyF.dpuf
Efrat Levy Esq

Comment Sought on Two Draft Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinions

SAN FRANCISCO—The California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions invites the public to comment on two draft judicial ethics advisory opinions. One draft opinion answers questions posed to the committee about the disqualification requirements for judges who have received aggregated or law firm campaign contributions that exceed $1,500. The second draft opinion discusses how judges can ensure that disclosures are made on the record when there is no court reporter or electronic recording of the proceedings. Both draft opinions provide guidance under the California Code of Judicial Ethics, which establishes standards for ethical conduct for state judges on and off the bench and for candidates for judicial office.
The draft opinions are posted on the committee’s website at http://www.JudicialEthicsOpinions.ca.gov/itc.  The deadline for comment is November 15, 2013.

After considering the public’s comments on both draft opinions, the committee will decide whether or not to publish opinions in final form. Comments are due by November 15, 2013, and may be submitted in any of the following ways:

• Online at http://www.JudicialEthicsOpinions.ca.gov/itc;
• By email to Judicial.Ethics@jud.ca.gov; or
• By mailing comments to Ms. Nancy Black, Committee Counsel, The California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial
Ethics Opinions, 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California 94102.

CJEO is an independent committee appointed by the Supreme Court to help inform the judiciary and the public concerning judicial ethics topics. CJEO was established as part of the court’s constitutional responsibility to guide the conduct of judges and judicial candidates (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 18, subd. (m)). In making appointments to serve on CJEO, the court selects members of the bench with a strong background in judicial ethics and diverse courtroom experience. The current twelve CJEO members are justices, judges, a commissioner, and a retired bench officer who have served in courts of various sizes throughout the state.  

CJEO publishes formal opinions, issues confidential informal opinions, and provides oral advice on proper judicial conduct pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and other authorities (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80(e)(1)). CJEO acts independently of the Supreme Court, the Commission on Judicial Performance, the Judicial Council, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and all other entities (rule 9.80(b)).

For more information about CJEO, visit the CJEO website and view the members’ page, call toll-free at 1 855-854-5366, or email Judicial.Ethics@jud.ca.gov. - See more at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/23653.htm#sthash.JzNFrCca.dpuf. 

News by Efrat Levy Esq http://www.elevylaw.com

California Department of Corporations

Effective July 1, 2013, the California Department of Corporations and the Department of Financial Institutions merged to form the Department of Business Oversight in accordance with the Governor’s reorganization of state departments and agencies to provide services more efficiently and effectively.

Consumer Alerts! Online Payday Lenders

California Department of Business Oversight Advises Caution for Payday Loan Consumers. The Department has posted an updated Internet Payday Lending Alert for consumers who might consider using payday cash advances from online lenders. This update is in addition to two previous alerts posted by the Department which may be found here: Internet Payday Lending Alerts.
The Department warns potential borrowers to take extra caution when dealing with unlicensed Internet payday lenders who fail to obtain a license with the Department of Business Oversight, evading state laws and regulations designed to protect consumers. The Alert provides advice and contact information to report unlicensed lenders.