This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.


Earn one hour of MCLE self-study credit by reading an article and answering questions. Submit a completed test and $36 payment for an MCLE certificate.


Earn one hour of general participatory credit by watching a video or listening to a podcast and answering questions. Submit a completed test and $36 payment for an MCLE certificate.


The Daily Journal Corporation, publisher of the Los Angeles Daily Journal, the San Francisco Daily Journal and, is approved by the State Bar of California as a continuing legal education provider. These self-study and participatory activities qualify for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit in the amount of one hour. The Daily Journal Corporation certifies that this activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by the rules and regulations of the State Bar of California.

Available tests for — $36/each

general/Privacy Law

Is a Non-Party's Contact Information Private?

Sep. 14, 2017

When a class action litigant seeks to discover contact information for a third party--often with respect to potential class members--privacy considerations come into play. By Lauren S. Kadish


Additional insureds and bad faith

Sep. 8, 2017
By Kirk A. Pasich

Review a new ruling dealing with when an insurer breaches its duty to defend an additional insured.

general/Criminal Practice

Learn the basics of Marsden motions

Aug. 28, 2017
By Gregg L. Prickett

The objective of this article and accompanying self-study test is to review how a court handles a criminal defendant's motion under People v. Marsden to have appointed counsel replaced by a different counsel.

general/Appellate Practice

When the 9th Circuit turns to the California Supreme Court

Aug. 25, 2017
By Peder K. Batalden, Felix Shafir

Recent cases suggests that the 9th Circuit might be applying a less stringent standard for when it feels obliged to certify a question about California law to the state high court

general/Family Law

Spousal support and ‘changed circumstances’

Aug. 21, 2017
By Robert A. Roth

Earn MCLE learning about the changed circumstances test — the benchmark for modification motions in family law cases.

general/Legal Malpractice

The timeliness of attorney malpractice claims

Aug. 18, 2017
By Scott P. Dixler

Earn MCLE credit reviewing the applicability of the “continuous representation” rule.


Insurance policies and breach of contract exclusions

Aug. 11, 2017
By Shaun H. Crosner

Liability insurers frequently assert that contractual liabilities do not fall within their policies' insuring agreements, and they also commonly attempt to rely on policy exclusions and public policy arguments to deny coverage for breach of contract claims. However, as numerous courts have recognized, such positions are not always well founded.

general/Constitutional Law

9th Circuit has chance to vindicate First Amendment

Jul. 28, 2017

Does it violate the First Amendment for the state of California to force merchants who charge more to customers paying with credit cards to refer to that price difference as a “cash discount” rather than a “credit-card surcharge”? The 9th Circuit will consider this on August 17.


Appointment of discovery referees

Jul. 24, 2017
By Patricia M. Lucas, Gary Nadler

Learn about the source of a court’s authority to appoint a referee, the scope of referee appointment orders, and referees’ powers.


Misconceptions about an insurer’s duty to defend

Jul. 14, 2017
By Dominic Nesbitt

In spite of the Supreme Court’s continuing reaffirmation of the broad “potential for coverage” standard, policyholders continue to hold many misconceptions about when a duty to defend is owed.