Professor Galves lectures widely on the use of technology in the practice of law, including the use of 3D computer animations and virtual reality exhibits. His use of technology in teaching and his computer-assisted litigation course has inspired several universities to recruit Professor Galves as a visiting professor. He has taught at the University of California at Davis School of Law, Fordham Law School, the University of Denver Law School and Southwestern University Law School. He also teaches as a visitor in the Political Science Department at Colorado College.
Professor Galves also teaches several international courses to Americans and foreigners. He has taught Trial Advocacy in Chile and China, private international litigation in Austria, alternative dispute resolution in Germany, and each summer he teaches U.S. Securities Law as well as USA Legal Orientation to foreign attorneys and judges enrolled in the U.C. Davis international program.
At Pacific McGeorge, Professor Galves taught Civil Procedure, Evidence, and Computer-Assisted Litigation. He also administered the Street Law International Program in conjunction with Sacramento Charter High School, Florin High and McClatchy High – a program in which law students teach legal concepts and trial advocacy to inner city teenagers.
Following graduation from Harvard Law School in 1986, Galves served as a judicial clerk for Judge John L. Kane (U.S. District Court, District of Colorado). He later practiced with the Denver law firm of Holland & Hart, specializing in complex commercial litigation and litigation against former directors and officers in failed banks and savings and loan associations. Galves has worked on national banking legislation with both the Senate and House Banking Committees. Galves has done pro bono legal work in Chile on a human rights fellowship from Harvard, and was a Harvard teaching fellow in Principles of Economics (“EC 10”).
Specialties: Courses Taught: Civil Procedure, Evidence, Trial Advocacy, Banking Law, Federal Courts, Computer-Assisted Litigation, Street Law.
Professor, Trial Advocacy/Alternative Dispute Resolution for Chilean Prosecutors and Defenders
Fred Galves, Ed Imwinkelried, Jay Leach, Evidence Simulations, West Academic Publishing (2013) (part of the publisher’s “Bridge to Practice Series”)
The book covers the major areas of Evidence law by using simulated trial settings, pre-trial arguments, and trial-planning evidentiary analysis. The simulated exercises are based on two simple, easy-to-grasp case scenarios (one civil, one criminal). In some exercises the students play all the roles; in others they watch video trial segments “cold” and are required to react with objections and arguments in support of or in opposition to offered evidence. Each exercise is preceded by a set of “points to remember” to equip beginning students with the trial advocacy skills they need to handle a simulated trial setting. A final exercise combines all areas into one summary wrap-up useful for a session on overall course review. The Teacher’s Manual describes how these exercises can be successfully integrated into a traditional “podium” course, with tips on room set-up; role assignments, and effective methods of feedback. An alternative version of the book contains expanded versions of the case files for use in a course in which Evidence and Trial Advocacy are to be taught simultaneously.
Fred Galves, [Book Chapter] “Teaching Litigation Technology” (Chapter 7) in the e-book, Educating the Digital Lawyer, edited by Oliver Goodenough and Marc Lauritsen, published by LexisNexis, Harvard University (2013)
Educating the Digital Lawyer is a ground-breaking collection of essays organized around a central question: What will legal education look like as we train our graduates to be effective lawyers in the digital world of the 21st Century? The volume grows out of a pair of working conferences connected with the FutureEd initiative—one in October 2010 at Harvard Law School and one in April 2011 at Columbia Law School—that brought together several dozen academics and practitioners who are deeply interested in the technology of law and how law schools and other institutions should educate students and lawyers about it. Certain participants were asked to contribute chapters to a compilation that would provide a snapshot of current ideas and aspirations. The book chapters provide an understanding of how the digital revolution that is affecting so much of society is also now changing how law works and, consequently, how we in the legal academy need to go about teaching the next generation of lawyers who will inhabit—and help shape—this changing world of law.
Paul Rothstein & Fred Galves, “Global Issues in Evidence” West Academic Publishing (forthcoming, 2016).
The book will be used in either a traditional Evidence course, or a Comparative Law course. We plan to analyze various selected topics in Evidence law in the US, and compare and contrast those topics with the way in which those topics are addressed in many countries around the world. The goal is to expose US law students to evidentiary and trial systems that are similar, but also, in many respects, quite different from our system, and consider how these differing codes and conventions are a function of important policy choices, relevant legal history, and cultural differences that help to explain the development of the law in various justice systems around the world.
Fred Galves, “Might Does Not Make Right: Reforming the Federal Government’s D’Oench Duhme and 12 U.S.C. §1823(e) Superpowers in Failed Bank Litigation.” 80 Minn. L. Rev. 1323 (June, 1996) (discussing unfair litigation powers of the federal government when it seizes a failed or failing financial institution and litigates against former borrowers and others on behalf of the institution). As I was finishing my article, I was asked to testify before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee in Washington D.C. on the unfair powers of the federal government. Congressional Senate Testimony; Professor Fred Galves, June 14, 1995 (Testimony presented before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee).
Fred Galves, “The Discriminatory Impact of Traditional Lending Criteria: An Economic and Moral Critique,” 29 Set. Hall L. Rev. 1467 (1999) (discussing racial lending discrimination and suggesting substantial reform of traditional credit scoring systems so that “objective” creditworthy criteria does not have a discriminatory impact on racial and ethnic minorities).
Fred Galves, “Where the Not-So-Wild Things Are: Computers In the Courtroom, The Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Need for Institutional Reform and More Judicial Acceptance,” 13 Harv. J. Law & Tech. 165 (Winter, 2000) (discussing various admissibility concerns of computer-generated exhibits, such as animations, simulations and re-creations and analyzing common evidentiary objections and how to overcome them). The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology published the article with an accompanying CD-ROM so the reader could access the animations as they read the text (which was a first at the time). Demonstratives, Inc. (formerly Engineering Animation) subsequently donated the article’s computer animations, the CD ROMs used, and the labor to reproduce the CD ROMs at no cost. The article has been cited by many authors and cases, including two separate state Supreme Courts (New Mexico and Minnesota).
Fred Galves, “Will Video Kill The Radio Star? Visual Learning and the Use of Display Technology in the Law School Classroom,” University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy [peer-reviewed, cross- disciplinary journal] (2004) (exploring learning theory and addressing the pedagogical benefits and common critiques of teaching law courses using display technology). The article discusses how technology is changing not only the way lawyers present cases in court, but the way in which law professors can teach in the classroom to reach students with different learning styles. If used properly, visual images, non-textual diagrams, and conceptual flow charts can greatly enhance students’ retention and understanding of complex legal cases and materials.
Fred Galves, “Objection! Irrelevant and Unrealistic: It’s Time for Evidence Exams to Evolve,” 50 St. Louis. U. L. J. 1223 (2006) (focusing on traditional testing methods of law students and arguing that they could be enhanced in order to be more realistic and relevant for our students). On my Evidence exams, I give students a 40-80 page pre-test exam packet consisting of a complaint, answer, discovery exhibits, photographs, reports, etc., (similar to a NITA mock trial case file) several weeks before the final exam. The final exam is then based solely on the fact packet where the mock case goes to trial and students are asked to respond to various issues that occur at trial such as admissibility of various exhibits, changed testimony, motions in limine, and so on, the way a real attorney would encounter evidentiary issues in actual practice.
Fred Galves, “Admissibility of 3-D Computer Animations under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the California Evidence Code,” 50 Sw. U. L. Rev. (2007) (discussing admissibility concerns of expert witness computer technology tools under both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the California Evidence Code).
Fred Galves, “Virtual Justice as Reality: Making the Resolution of e-Commerce Disputes More Convenient, Legitimate, Efficient, and Secure,” University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy [peer-reviewed, joint publication of the University of Illinois College of Law, the National Center for Supercomputing Applications and the Institute of Government and Public Affairs] (Spring 2009) (arguing that the solution to the lack of justice for e-commerce disputes involves a necessary paradigm shift away from geographical location-based lawsuits designed to adjudicate transactions that take place in-person or are sufficiently connected to one state or country in the world by using the same medium that makes e-commerce transactions possible in the first place – the internet). The article suggests that personal jurisdiction disputes are solved with Online Dispute Resolution (“ODR”) because neither litigant has to physically attend a hearing nor trial in a different state. Instead, the entire dispute can be resolved in cyber-space – “where” the disputed transaction occurred in the first place.
I am a co-owner of a patent on the first international, on-line legal forum for which I wrote the rules of procedure. I am also a member of the Advisory Panel of Modria, Inc., the leading ODR company providing dispute resolution platforms to private businesses and public agencies and court systems throughout the world.
Fred Galves, “The Unfair Shift in Litigation Cost-Bearing and Production Burdens When Using Search Terms or Predictive Coding Programs to Locate Electronic Documents: Do Calls for More “Cooperation” and “Transparency” in E-Discovery Fully Address the Problem?” (forthcoming)
Because there has been a colossal growth in Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) over the last few decades, document requests have become almost impossible to comply with, especially on a cost effective basis. In nearly every case, there is now literally “too much information” to search through, review, consider, and produce the way attorneys used to be able to when we were more in a “paper discovery” context, with perhaps only a few or even many boxes of documents to consider. Although key word searches are now available to search through all of the ESI, the way one can search through all court reporters for cases opinions when conducting legal research seeking applicable case law precedents using LexiNexis or Westlaw, an unforeseen problem has emerged. When using a key word search that is suggested by the requesting party, although it can be helpful and efficient, often ends up unfairly shifting much of the producing party’s burden party to search for all of its responsive documents, onto the requesting party. This unfair shift is accomplished by having the producing party run key word searches formulated by the requesting party, and then be required to produce only those particular documents generated. Also, more and more, producing parties are being allowed to shift the costs of production to requesting parties because producing parties can now claim that the cost of the search and review is so excessive that it is unreasonably burdensome. Simple calls for “more cooperation” do not fully address the underlying problem. Keeping the burden on the producing party is the only way to properly incentivize producing parties to produce all relevant documents that are responsive to a general document request.
Fred Galves, “Seeking Tech-Savvy Associates: Which Prospective Employee Is Right for Your Firm?” LAW OFFICE COMPUTING, (February/March 2005) 70 (discussing what legal technology knowledge and skills employers should look for in hiring law students)
Fred Galves and Christine Galves, “Ensuring The Admissibility Of Electronic Forensic Evidence And Enhancing Its Probative Value at Trial” ABA JOURNAL (Spring Symposium on Criminal & Evidence & Law, 2004) 37 (discussing investigatory and legal requirements for proper searches and seizures of electronic data and evidentiary authentication foundation requirements for admissibility of electronic data at trial)
Fred Galves, “Courtroom Graphics: Why to Use Them and How Not to Abuse Them,” THE BOTTOM LINE, The Technology Journal of the California Bar Association (October 2009) The article discusses various persuasion and admissibility challenges and mistakes that lawyers often make using technology in the courtroom. The article also explores several ways to address these challenges and mistakes and discusses the many advantages of using computer graphics at trial
Fred Galves, “From Dictatorship to Democracy: An American Witness to Political Reform and Legal Justice in Chile,” PACIFIC LAW (Spring 2005) (discussing my experiences as a human rights intern as a law student in Chile as juxtaposed to my experience as a law professor teaching Trial Advocacy in Chile, a country that has returned to democracy and the “rule of law,” with a much more transparent legal system.
Fred Galves, “Major Acts of Congress: Community Reinvestment Act” Macmillan Reference (Spring, 2004) (discussing the Community Reinvestment Act requiring banks and other lenders to make loans investments in their communities)
Fred Galves, “FDIC and RTC Special Powers In Failed Bank Litigation,” 22 THE COLORADO LAWYER 471 (March, 1993).
There are at least three important sources of legal information that lawyers and law students should consult when considering evidentiary admissibility issues: (1) The text of the Federal Rules of Evidence (including any significant California Distinction for California based lawyers and law students); (2) A helpful academic explanation of those Rules and how they typically are applied and interpreted by judges; and (3) the Advisory Committee Notes explaining each of the Rules by providing the official instructive guidance of the drafters of the rules as to the operation and application of the rules. These various written source materials are usually found in different books that are set forth in a linear, outline form that must be consulted separately, yet simultaneously, and therefore can be difficult and cumbersome to use in hard copy form.
This Evidence Rules website/application (“APP”) is an easy and convenient way to quickly and efficiently consult this legal content which is broken down into each small subsection of each rule and then correlated to the other legal sources. All this legal content is contained in just one source so that lawyers, as well as law students, can review and study particular evidentiary topics, subtopics, rules, hypotheticals, and trial objections, in a technologically-based, easily accessed, portable format. Each of these general topics has simple to access subtopics set forth in drop down menus. The “search function” makes it very easy to do a full APP word or rule number search in order to quickly find any partial/key language remembered that the user would like to find immediately. The APP also contains an Introduction & Overview of Evidence book.