Welcome to your daily briefing on legal developments in South Dakota. Today we're covering 6 key stories including updates on south dakota legal headlines, background & context. Let's dive in.
3 stories
The South Dakota District Court offers attorneys access to its CM/ECF system through the federal PACER portal for electronic case filing and court records lookup.
Legal professionals practicing in SD need reliable electronic access to federal court systems for timely filing and case management in South Dakota's federal jurisdiction.
The State Bar of South Dakota invites members to serve on committees that develop, implement, and oversee bar goals and programs.
Volunteering on an SBSD committee offers SD legal professionals a direct path to shape the profession and strengthen their networks.
The South Dakota Board of Bar Examiners maintains its official website as the primary portal for bar examination information in the state.
Legal professionals and law students in SD rely on this site for bar application deadlines, exam schedules, and admission requirements.
Reach professionals in this market
3 stories
A preservation (litigation hold) letter is appropriate as soon as litigation is reasonably anticipated, not just after a complaint is filed. The letter should identify the matter, the document categories at issue, and the recipient's preservation duty. Failure to send one is the leading evidence of spoliation in subsequent motion practice.
Sanctions for spoliation can include adverse-inference instructions, monetary fines, and in severe cases default judgment. The cost of issuing a hold letter is one paralegal hour.
Client trust funds and the firm's operating funds must never commingle, even temporarily, even with the intent to "fix it later." Bar audits look for two things first: (1) any check or transfer that touches both accounts, (2) negative balances on any specific client's ledger. Both are presumptive misappropriation regardless of intent.
Trust-account violations produce some of the harshest discipline in professional regulation, including suspension and disbarment. The technicality has no defense based on good intentions.
Enforceability of employee non-competes varies dramatically by state and is trending toward narrower enforcement nationally. Common defects include geographic scope broader than the employer's actual market, duration longer than necessary to protect a legitimate interest, and lack of consideration beyond continued employment.
An overbroad non-compete is often unenforceable in its entirety, not just blue-penciled down — meaning the employer gets no protection at all. A narrower, defensible clause protects more than an aspirational one.
Get South Dakota legal intelligence delivered to your inbox every morning.
Subscribe FreeView all past issues
Feature your brand across the U.S., Canada, and select international markets and 10 industry verticals.
Become a National Partner