Using the iPad in legal practice — Part 3

Previous posts1. Setting up2. Applications for the iPadThis post3. Getting information on and off the iPad3.1 iTunes3.2 Third-party file sharing3.3 Internet3.4 WiFi network3.5 Printing3.6 Video on the iPad   3.6.1 Ripping video   3.6.2 Converting video   3.6.3 VLC   3.6.4 Air Video   3.6.5 Air DisplayLater posts4. Using the iPad in Court5. Other uses and miscellaneous stuff3. Getting information on and off the iPadThe …

Continue reading Using the iPad in legal practice — Part 3

Using the iPad in legal practice — Part 2

Previous post1. Setting upThis post2. Applications for the iPad2.1 File viewers   2.1.1 GoodReader   2.1.2 iAnnotate PDF   2.1.3 ReaddleDocs   2.1.4 DropBox   2.1.5 SugarSync2.2 File authoring   2.2.1 Pages   2.2.2 Quickoffice connect HD   2.2.3 Office2 HD   2.2.4 Documents To Go Premium2.3.1 Note taking   2.3.1 NoteTaker HD   2.3.2 Circus Ponies Notebook   2.3.3 Plain Text   2.3.4 Dragon DictateLater posts3. Getting information on and off the iPad4. Using the iPad in Court5. Other uses …

Continue reading Using the iPad in legal practice — Part 2

Using the iPad in legal practice — Part 1

1. Part 1 — Setting up1.1 WiFi + 3G, or just WiFi1.2 Storage capacity1.3 Which mobile network1.4 Online storage   1.4.1 DropBox   1.4.2 BoxNet   1.4.3 SugarSync   1.4.4 iDisk1.5 Adobe Acrobat1.6 Scanner1.7 File structure and naming convention1.8 Fax serviceLater posts2. Applications for the iPad3. Getting information on and off the iPad4. Using the iPad in Court5. Other uses and miscellaneous stuffBack …

Continue reading Using the iPad in legal practice — Part 1

BP v R; R v BP [2010] NSWCCA 303: tendency or coincidence evidence?

Have difficulty telling the difference between tendency and coincidence evidence?You're not alone. The last time I wrote a paper on tendency and coincidence evidence (when it was still known as similar fact and propensity) it took me so long that by the time I had finished it the law had changed again. With that experience …

Continue reading BP v R; R v BP [2010] NSWCCA 303: tendency or coincidence evidence?