Daniel Garrie
Daniel Garrie is the founder and managing partner at Law & Forensics. Daniel is paving the way when it comes to 2018’s most pressing cyber security, forensic, and legal issues. Daniel, one of the most sought-after computer forensic experts and special masters, cyber mediators, and forensic neutrals with JAMS. Judges and attorneys laud his reports for their clarity, focus, and ability to help parties settle even the most complex disputes. Mr. Garrie has garnered a national reputation for his experience at the intersection of technology and the law and is as comfortable talking with entrepreneurs, IT professionals, and developers as he is with lawyers and judges.

Contact Daniel Garrie

Adam Brausa
Adam focuses his practice on patent litigation. He has represented numerous pioneering technology companies in litigations relating to a wide range of technologies, including antibody expression, DNA microarrays, prosthetic implants, medical devices, touchscreen smartphones, cloud-based synchronization, vacuum cleaners, and microwave packaging.

Adam also counsels clients on non-litigation options relating to patent interests, including post-grant review, ex parte reexamination, inter partes review, and foreign declaratory judgment and opposition proceedings. Adam’s first step when dealing with any client is listening, to understand the business objectives of the client. With those objectives in mind, Adam helps craft a strategic legal plan to move forward and achieve those goals.

Contact Adam Brausa

Thomas J. Nolan
Thomas J. Nolan is Trial Counsel in the Sherman Oaks office of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP. Mr. Nolan is widely recognized as one of the nation’s leading trial attorneys, and has extensive civil and criminal trial experience representing corporations and individuals in complex litigation in state and federal courts. Mr. Nolan is a former federal prosecutor and served as Chief of Fraud and Special Prosecutions in the Los Angeles United States Attorney’s Office. He has been a member of the defense bar since 1979.

Contact Thomas J. Nolan

1 General Credit

ProLawCLE will seek approval of any CLE program where the registering attorney is primarily licensed with exceptions stated below. Application is made at the time an attorney registers for a course, therefore approval may not be received at the time of broadcasting.

ProLawCLE does not seek approval in the state of Virginia.

Each state has its own governing rules and regulations with regards to CLE courses and formats, therefore please contact your state MCLE regulatory entity for further details about your state's rules. Please visit our State Requirements page for information regarding your state's CLE requirements and/or contact information for your state bar.

As stated in our Reciprocity Provision, ProLawCLE will grant credit in the following states through reciprocity, therefore direct application will not be made in these states:

AK, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, KY, MA, ME, MD, MI, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, PA, SC, SD, TN, VT, WA, WI, WV, PR

The following states are self apply. The attorney can apply for credit at no cost. We will provide documentation for them to apply:

CO, IA, NE

OH Attorneys please note: OH Supreme Court will not approve any course that was aired more than 12 months prior.

SC Attorneys please note: Registration must occur no later than 5 business days from the event date or course accreditation is not guaranteed.

ProLawCLE is dedicated to providing quality education from expert speakers and ensuring each attorney receives CLE credit for their participation. If for some reason a particular course does not receive approval in the attorney's primary state of licensure, ProLawCLE will give credit for a future approved course or give a full refund, if applicable.

Each On-Demand course is available to you for 1 year from date of purchase. Additionally, CLE credit is only available within that year.

Read our full Reciprocity Provision here

1. Cyber Concerns for Mobile Devices
2. Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in Trial
3. Property Management of Electronic Evidence