Category Archives: News

Gary Guzzi is our Latest Featured Speaker!

Posted on by Faith Pincus
08 Apr

Our latest featured speaker is Gary Guzzi from Akerman!

Gary will be speaking at our upcoming Insurance Bad Faith Cases program in Miami on April 12th! This will be his first time speaking with us. Welcome, Gary!

Gary serves as chair of Akerman’s Insurance Litigation Practice, a national team of 45 lawyers representing leading domestic and foreign carriers, self-insured corporations, municipalities, and related entities in insurance coverage and bad faith litigation. He protects the interests of national and international insurance carriers in bad faith disputes, coverage claims, rescissions and ERISA-governed policies.

With comprehensive experience in insurance disputes, Gary litigates life, disability, commercial general liability, directors and officers, errors and omissions, homeowner, business interruption, and auto claims. His bad faith experience includes both first-party claims such as wrongful denial, delay, improper appraisal invocation, and lowballing, as well as third-party claims such as failure to tender limits, failure to proactively negotiate, and improper settlement communications.

Gary also represents carriers in litigation pertaining to carriers’ rescissions of policies, including misrepresentations in applications, failure to update applications, and Stranger-Owned Life Insurance. Gary litigates cases involving life, disability, and similar policies governed by ERISA, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and claims for benefits. Additionally, Gary advises carriers on proper techniques for claim handling, rescissions, and other aspects of carriers’ businesses.

Rochelle Wilcox is our Latest Featured Speaker!

Posted on by Faith Pincus
04 Apr

Our latest featured speaker is Rochelle Wilcox from Davis Wright Tremaine!

Rochelle will be speaking at our upcoming Understanding SLAPPs program in San Francisco on April 5th. This is her first time speaking for us, and we’re thrilled to have her!

Rochelle, a California State Bar Certified Appellate Specialist, focuses her litigation and appeals practice on media law, including extensive experience with California’s anti-SLAPP law, defense of defamation, invasion of privacy and newsgathering claims, and access and reporter’s shield issues.

Rochelle’s practice also includes a full range of employment litigation on behalf of employers and general business litigation issues. She has broad experience in federal and state appellate courts in a wide array of issues and disputes.

Rochelle’s California Supreme Court experience includes participating in drafting six successful petitions for review, all of which had successful outcomes. She has been counsel for the winning party in her last eight cases before the California Supreme Court.

Fiduciary Duty Claims In Bankruptcy: Mitigating The Risks

Posted on by Faith Pincus

Mitigating the risks of fiduciary duty claims in bankruptcy is something every attorney and corporate board member should think about – very early on.

Joseph Swanson and Donald Kirk represent company officers and directors in commercial litigation matters, navigating high-stakes cases involving fiduciary duty and bankruptcy.

Donald recently spoke for our Director & Officer Litigation webinar, and we’re so glad to have his and Joseph’s permission to share their article below.

 

Fiduciary Duty Claims In Bankruptcy: Mitigating The Risks

By Joseph Swanson and Donald Kirk

Businesses and other organizations fail from time to time. That is a reality of our capitalist system. In the vast majority of these cases, the failure occurs despite the best efforts of the business’ senior management and board. Market forces, macroeconomic trends or just bad luck are most often the cause of any particular business’ demise.

Unfortunately for the management and board, however, they may be blamed for the business’ failure. In a bankruptcy, the trustee, shareholders, employees and other third parties frequently look to hold the directors and officers responsible. In many cases, this comes in the form of a breach of fiduciary duty or similar claim. These claims are all the more likely when the failed business had a significant directors and officers insurance policy in place. Although defending these claims can be stressful for the directors and officers, as discussed below, there are protections in place for the defendants and strategies that can mitigate that anxiety, reduce their exposure, and ultimately resolve the case.

The Failure of Oversight Claim

Directors and officers generally owe fiduciary duties to fulfill their positions with care, loyalty and in good faith. These duties require directors and officers to (1) act with diligence and in an informed manner, and (2) put the organization’s interests ahead of their own (i.e., avoid personal conflicts of interest). This is true whether the organization is for-profit or not-for-profit.

In the wake of a business’ failure, the duty of oversight is the fiduciary duty most often at issue. As explained in In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996), a component of directors’ and officers’ fiduciary duties is an obligation to adequately oversee the organization, which includes establishing and monitoring compliance programs with regard to regulatory and legal obligations.

In cases subsequent to Caremark, the courts have stated that for liability to attach under the duty of oversight, the directors and/or officers must have “utterly failed to implement any reporting or information system or controls,” or, with such a system in place, “consciously failed to monitor or oversee its operations.” See, e.g., Stone ex rel. AmSouth Bancorporation v. Ritter, 911 A.2d 362 (Del. 2006).

As Caremark itself recognized, a failure of oversight claim is “possibly the most difficult theory in corporation law upon which a plaintiff might hope to win a judgment.” Caremark, 698 A.2d at 967. To be viable, a Caremark claim requires conduct by the defendants that is more egregious than gross negligence, and that would mean an intentional failure to act despite a known duty to act. In other words, the plaintiff will need to show that the defendants knew they were not fulfilling their fiduciary duties.

Notwithstanding these exacting standards, plaintiffs routinely assert a failure of oversight claim against directors and officers. This may be because this claim, which resides within the duties of loyalty and good faith, generally falls outside any otherwise applicable exculpation provisions.

Fiduciary Duty Claims in Bankruptcy Proceedings

In a bankruptcy, particularly where the organization previously obtained a sizable D&O insurance policy, directors and officers may find themselves the targets of a duty of oversight claim. The trustee may contend that the failure by the directors and officers to monitor the organization and respond to various risks resulted in the organization’s demise. Further, the trustee will likely contend that the D&O insurance policy — and its proceeds — belong to the estate for the benefit of its creditors. In that situation, the directors, officers and carrier can expect to receive a demand letter from the trustee’s counsel asserting a claim on the policy. To make things worse for the directors and officers, that claim may be in addition to other claims, such as for securities violations, fraud and the like, asserted against those defendants by other parties.

Tips for Staying Out of the Crosshairs

The scenario outlined above is daunting for directors and officers of a failed organization. However, the following tips can not only help avoid the scenario in the first place, but can also mitigate the defendants’ risks and resolve the matter as efficiently as possible once a failure of oversight claim is asserted.

1. Fulfill the Duty of Oversight

Ideally, the directors and officers will avoid a claim altogether by discharging their fiduciary duty of oversight. To do so, these individuals should implement a reporting system and controls suitable for their organization and then monitor that system and controls for any red flags. That system and controls generally include regular board meetings with presentations on compliance and other high-risk subjects relevant for the organization. The board meetings should include input from consultants, as needed, such as for capital campaigns, executive compensation and other significant corporate transactions. Such meetings and presentations should be memorialized in minutes. Other hallmarks of a reporting system and controls are the use of outside auditors and the establishment and monitoring of reporting hotlines. Where an organization is experiencing significant financial strain, the directors and officers should be especially diligent and mindful of any duties they may have to creditors. The bottom line is that a documented record of attentiveness to these issues can be the best defense to an attempt by a plaintiff to assign blame for the organization’s failure to the directors and officers.

2. Obtain Sufficient Insurance Coverage

The directors and officers of any organization should consider the sufficiency of any D&O insurance policy that the organization obtains on their behalf. Issues to consider with any D&O insurance policy include the nature of claims to be covered, any exclusions to coverage, the retention amount, and the period within which any claim must be submitted to the carrier. Where appropriate, directors and officers should consider purchasing tail coverage, which will permit them to report any claims made after the policy has expired. Directors and officers should be particularly cognizant of the sufficiency of their coverage in times of financial distress for the organization.

3. Respond Vigorously but Efficiently to Any Claim

If a claim is made against the directors and officers, they should seek counsel who will respond vigorously but efficiently to the allegations. Efficiency is particularly important where the D&O policy is a “wasting” policy, whereby defense costs erode the policy’s limits. It is important that defense counsel in these matters have the ability to efficiently manage what is often a dynamic situation with multiple constituencies that include not only the clients, but the trustee and her counsel, counsel for the carrier, and counsel for any other claimants.

Counsel’s investigation should gauge the seriousness of the allegations. The investigation should include targeted client interviews and with third parties, as well as targeted document review. In our experience, the electronically stored information (ESI) at issue in these matters can be significant, so it is important to develop a plan to locate and review key documents as efficiently as possible. In responding to the allegations, defense counsel should never lose sight of the rigorous standard for a breach of oversight claim. Counsel should focus on whether any reporting system or controls were in place, and if so, whether the directors and officers responded to red flags. The trustee and her counsel will likely contend that the mere fact of the organization’s failure is proof of a lack of oversight. That position, however, ignores Caremark and its progeny, which dictate that plaintiffs must link the organization’s collapse to the alleged lack of oversight.

4. Consider Presuit Mediation

We have seen an emerging trend where the trustee and her counsel will propose a presuit mediation in an attempt to resolve the claims against the directors and officers. This approach has several benefits that defense counsel should consider. First, by engaging in this process, defense counsel may be able to resolve the claims without a lawsuit being filed, which would otherwise publicly name the defendants. For obvious reasons, this can be very attractive to directors and officers of a failed organization. Second, the process is likely to be less expensive than full-blown litigation, which means that fewer policy proceeds will be spent on defense costs. Third, preparing for the mediation allows counsel to understand the allegations, and whether they have any basis, sooner. This puts defense counsel in a better position to advise their clients and the carrier about the merits of the claims. This is very helpful if the mediation fails to resolve the matter.

The failure of a business or other organization is a traumatic event for many constituencies, including the directors and officers. A breach of fiduciary duty claim only makes that situation worse for those individuals. By following these tips, however, directors and officers — and their counsel — can seek to avoid that claim in the first place. And, if a claim is asserted, these tips can help to reduce the exposure and achieve a resolution.

Gary Watt is our Latest Featured Speaker!

Posted on by Faith Pincus
29 Mar

Our latest featured speaker is Gary Watt from Hanson Bridgett!

Gary will be speaking at our upcoming Understanding SLAPPs program in San Francisco on April 5th. He recently spoke for us at our 4th Annual Advanced Appellate Conference, where seminar attendees raved about his presentation. We’re glad to have you again, Gary!

Gary serves as Chair of Hanson Bridgett’s Appellate Practice. He is a State Bar approved Certified Appellate Specialist, handling writs and appeals in all of the California appellate courts, including the California Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His practice also includes dispositive motions such as SLAPP, summary judgment, and post-trial motions. His appellate experience gives him unique insights into complex cases and esoteric disputes. He excels at issue spotting and arrives at thoughtful solutions to business problems. His practice includes risk management such as interpreting contracts, indemnity provisions, and more.

A passionate appellate lawyer and law professor, Gary has been on the faculty at U.C. Hastings College of the Law since 2001 teaching various appellate law courses and coaching intercollegiate moot court competition teams. Consistent with Hanson Bridgett’s commitment to pro bono work, Gary currently serves as Director of U.C. Hastings’ Ninth Circuit clinical program: the Hastings Appellate Project. As Director, he supervises law students in the pro bono legal representation of appellants. He is also a frequent lecturer at MCLE presentations throughout the Bay Area, and has taught hundreds of lawyers over the years on a vast array of appellate and litigation best practices.

Gary is also Chair of the Contra Costa County Bar Association’s appellate practice section. A prolific writer, Gary is a frequent contributor to the Daily Journal, The Recorder, and other legal publications, with over 75 published articles to date.

Stays, Bonding and Supersedeas in California: The Trial Court Just Ruled – Now What?

Posted on by Faith Pincus
12 Dec

by Pablo Drobny, recently retired Lead Appellate Court Attorney from the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District

I.  If the order or judgment is not appealable.

A.  If you are the losing side, consider a traditional writ petition.

B.  If you are winning side, remember an improper appeal does not stay enforcement of the order.

II.  When the judgment or order is immediately appealable, before a notice of appeal is filed:

A.  Review the statutes concerning stays and bonding on appeal to determine which provisions apply to your case.

i.  If more than one applies, see CCP §917.6.

B.  If you are the losing side, consider asking for a discretionary 10 day stay from the trial court (CCP §918).

C.  If you are the losing side, and you are indigent, make a motion under  CCP §995.240.

D.  If you are the winning side, consider asking the trial court to require a bond or undertaking (CCP §917.9.) even where the statute doesn’t require it.

III. Where CCP §916 applies, is the judgment stayed?

(See URS Corp. v. Atkinson/Walsh Joint Venture (2017) 15 Cal. App. 5th 872.)

A.  Filing of a notice of appeal does NOT stay a mandatory injunction.

B.  Filing of a notice of appeal does NOT stay matters not embraced in the judgment or affected thereby.

IV.  When to petition for a writ of supersedeas — CCP §923.

A.  When a bond is required but you cannot post one.

i.  Only if you first requested waiver in the trial court.

B.  When respondent and the trial court refuse to acknowledge a statutory stay — automatic or otherwise.

C.  When appellant wrongly insists there is an automatic stay.

D.  When the trial court denied a motion for a discretionary bond.

Pablo has spoken at every one of our appellate and writ seminars held in Los Angeles, since 2007. He’s the best – and one of the best rated speakers of all time! You can find some of his programs here:

Appellate Law Bundle

1st Annual Advanced Appellate Conference [Civil]

2nd Annual Appellate Conference

3rd Annual Advanced Conference

Demystifying Civil Appeals and Writs

Or you can just go to our audio page and search on “Appellate” as the keyword and California as the location.

Administrative Writ of Mandamus – What is it?

Posted on by Faith Pincus
07 Nov

by Charles L. Post, Esq. and Eunice C. Majam-Simpson, Esq.

For our latest Writs of Administrative Mandamus course, held in September 2020, please click here.

In 2017, we held a terrific program on Administrative Writs of Mandamus. Two of our speakers, Charles L. Post, Esq. and Eunice C. Majam-Simpson, Esq., created this terrific outline highlighting the things you need to know about what an Administrative Writ of Mandamus is and the process surrounding it.

If you are interested in knowing more about Administrative Hearings, we held a program on hearings two years ago. You can find out more about that program here. Our audio packages include all materials distributed at the program, and the PowerPoints.

Administrative Writ of Mandamus – What is it?

A.  What is it?

  1.  A method of obtaining judicial review of agency (public and private) decisions and actions.

B.  Two Types

1.  “Administrative Mandamus” under CCP §1094.5 et seq.

2.  “Traditional” or “Ordinary” Mandamus Pursuant to CCP §1084

C.  Uses and Prerequisites

1.  Challenge of an agency’s adjudicatory decision (a decision that concerns private rights or interests, when a hearing is required by law to be given before the agency that issues the decision).

2.  Prerequisites

–  Final agency decision

–  The decision resulted from a proceeding which was required by law

–  Evidence was required to be taken

–  Discretion in factual determinations is vested within the agency

–  “Agency” can mean both governmental and private organizations

D.  Goal of Administrative Mandamus Review

1.  To obtain a writ (an order from the Court) to a lower tribunal (the agency) directing the agency to set aside its decision, to reconsider its decision, or take such other action as the Court directs. (CCP §1094.5(f).)

2.  Special Proceedings

–  CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21165.7)

–  Traditional Mandamus (CCP §§ 1084-1097, 1107-1110(b))

E.  Features of Administrative Mandamus

1.  Administrative mandamus is a civil, special proceeding. (CCP § 23-63)

2.  Administrative mandate is a judicial review but it is not a reconsideration of the agency decision. There are some agency decisions that by statute or case law are judicially reviewed at the appellate level. (Public Utilities Commission, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, State Bar, etc.)

3.  Equity applies in administrative mandamus. Curtain v. DMV (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 481, 484.

4.  Speedy proceeding. Mandate hearings usually occur within weeks or months of a filing. Local court rules may specifically control the filing of an administrative mandamus (departments which may hear, other rules, etc.).

5.  No damages. In very narrow circumstances, a separate, later action for damages may be instituted. O’Hagan v. Board of Zoning Adjustment (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 722, 729.

6.  No jury. Administrative mandamus is heard by the Court. CCP §1094.5(a).

7.  Administrative exhaustion required before judicial review is available by administrative mandamus.

8.  A court considering a writ of administrative mandamus conducts a limited trial de novo, reviewing the administrative proceedings and the evidence admitted during the hearing. A court may inquire into whether the agency acted in excess of its jurisdiction, committed a serious error of law, or abused its discretion in determining of facts. CCP §1094.5(b)-(c).

9.  Understand the standard of review. “Substantial evidence” or “independent judgment”.

10.  Petitioner has the burden of proof. “Rarely if ever, will a board determination be disturbed unless the petitioner is able to show a jurisdictional excess, a serious error of law, or an abuse of discretion on the facts.” Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 814.

11.  New evidence not admissible. (Yes, there are exceptions but they are few and far between. More on this later.)

12.  “Discovery” as that term is used in the Civil Code as to civil proceedings is not available in the usual administrative mandate proceedings. (Yes, there are exceptions. More on this later.)

13.  Presumption that the administrative decision is correct.

14.  Prevailing party obtains costs, including administrative record preparation costs, and other costs of suit.

15.  Attorney’s fees not usually available. (Yes, there are exceptions. More on this later.)

16.  Generally no joinder with other causes of action. (No addition of declaratory relief, etc.) Allowed when cases of unconstitutionality declarations or applications for traditional mandamus (especially useful when uncertain as to which type of writ should be sought).

17.  A hearing on a petition for writ of administrative mandamus proceeds like a law and motion matter but the result of the judgment. CCP §1094.5(a), (f). This hearing, therefore is the only “trial” in an administrative mandamus action. Unlike other types of trials, no witnesses testify, and with certain limited exceptions, the only evidence the Court can consider is the evidence in the administrative record.

F.  Judicial Review of What?

1.  Governmental agency decisions. Although there are a few statutory exceptions, proceedings under CCP §1094.5 are the exclusive remedy for challenging the final adjudicatory decision of a state or local government agency when the decision is the result of a required evidentiary hearing. The list of qualifying decisions is long: professional license denial, licensed disciplinary proceedings, employee discipline imposed by a state or local public employers, termination of tenured teachers, driver’s license decisions, denial of disability retirement benefits, and many zoning and land use decisions.

2.  Adjudicatory decisions of private organizations. Any private organization that by bylaws or due to internal rules must hold a hearing and reach an adjudicatory decision may be submitted to administrative writ review. Hospital privilege decisions, internal insurer decisions regarding fees that will be charged by participating practitioners, private company decisions to terminate or discipline employees under a grievance procedure that requires evidence to be taken and considered during a hearing and union decisions.

G.  How is this different from traditional Mandamus?

1.  Traditional writ of mandate under CCP §1085 is appropriate when the Petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate alternative remedy and the Respondent has a clear, present and usually ministerial duty to act.

2.  Traditional mandamus may also apply when an administrative agency is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.

3.  Quasi-legislative acts may also be reviewed on traditional mandate.

H.  Objections to Evidence.

1.  Offering Evidence. A party may lose the opportunity to raise on writ of administrative mandamus by failing to raise the issue in the administrative hearing. This rule also applies to defenses that require an evidentiary showing. Jenron Corp. v. Dept. of Social Services (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1437 (failure to raise laches defense in administrative hearing waives the issues in subsequent administrative mandamus proceeding).

2.  A party must object to the admission of evidence at the administrative hearing, otherwise the evidentiary objection will be deemed waived. Hand v. Board of Examiners (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 605, 613.

a.  Hearsay evidence in administrative proceedings. Important differences from civil proceedings. Hearsay is generally admissible to supplement or explain other evidence in administrative proceedings, as long as it is both relevant and is “the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs.” Gov’t. Code § 11513(c). Specific rules applicable to a given administrative proceeding may further limit or permit the use of hearsay. Know your rules.

b.  Hearsay objections must be made at the hearing. At risk of waiving issue in later judicial review.

c.  Exceptions

(1)      Lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

(2)      Failure to state a cause of action.

(3)      Constitutional issues.

d.  These issues may be raised at any time. Don’t rely on an exception. All things being equal, it is better to object than not object. Consider use of wholesale “throughout this proceeding” objections. Often the administrative hearing officer will prefer such “global” objections rather than forcing him or her to rule on each individual objection. This time saving technique, however, can have pitfalls. Make sure that the stipulation that all objections have been made and preserved is on the record.

I.  The Record

1.  The standard applies whether the Court is considering the writ under the independent judgment test or the substantial evidence test. This is also true when the Court is deciding a purely legal issue.

2.  CCP §1094.5(e) expressly limits judicial review to the evidence in the administrative record except when: (1) the evidence could not, with due diligence, have been procedure during the administrative proceedings; or (2) the administrative body improperly excluded the evidence. Western States Petroleum Assoc. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 578.

3.  Evidence outside the administrative record might also be appropriately considered on issues not related to the validity of the decision being challenged such as standing and capacity to sue; affirmative defenses such as laches, estoppel and res judicata and the accuracy of the record. Western States, supra, 9 Cal.4th at 578.

4.  Sufficient record is essential to meet Petitioner’s burden. Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka. That said, in cases where the issues is purely legal and base on undisputed facts, a full record may not be necessary. Elizabeth D. v. Zolin (1993) 21 Cal.4th 347, 353.

5.  When to make the request. The record may be requested before filing, at the time of filing, or shortly after filing a petition. The Respondent agency may begin preparing the record as soon as the petition has been filed. However, this is a statutory and regulatory driven process. Petitioner should ascertain whether a particular statutory or regulatory scheme includes any special requirements concerning when the record must be requested.

6.  Make request in writing.

7.  Laches, burden of proof, res judicata, estoppel, validity of regulations, duress and necessity. May be supported by evidence outside the record.

8.  Bias charges.

a.  Raising the issue.

b.  Constitutional due process requires a competent and impartial tribunal in administrative hearings. The issue of bias must be raised at the administrative hearing. In APA Act cases, claim of prejudice must be raised under the procedures of Government Code § 11512(c) or the issue will be waived. Less stringent standard of impartiality than allowed for a hearing for judges in a civil matter. “The fact that an administrative agency is both accuser and judge is not considered to deprive the accused of due process of law.” Hallot v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1575.

9.  Statute of limitation issues. In cases governed under CCP §1094.6 and the Administrative Procedures Act, request for preparation of the administrative record within 10 days after the date of the administrative decision being challenged, the applicable statute of limitations will be tolled until 30 days after the record has been delivered or mailed to the Petitioner. CCP §1094.6(d).

J.  BEWARE! Know your statutes.

1.  Different statutes have different statute of limitations and time limits.

2.  Preparation of the record can take months, certain time lines apply.

 K.  Record Preparation.

1.  The Petitioner has the burden of proof and bears the burden and the cost of preparing and producing the administrative record. CCP §1094.5(a), CCP §1094.6(c).

2.  This cost may be recoverable if the Petitioner prevails.

3.  Agencies are required to prepare and produce a record.

Today in 1963 Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his “I Have a Dream Speech” – The #1 speech of the 20th Century

Posted on by Faith Pincus
28 Aug

On this day in 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his famous I have a Dream speech. You may not know this, but the part of his speech where he launched into beginning his sentences with “I have a dream” was not planned. He had used those phrases in the past, but they were not written into this speech. He was inspired by the crowd and went with it. And boy did he go with it.

And it has been classified as the #1 speech of the 20th Century. For good reason.

His use of repetition was so effective that the speech is remembered for, and titled by, those passages and that phrase. He actually utilized a variety of fantastic rhetorical devices throughout his speech, including alliteration and other forms of repetition.

If you’d like to hear it, or read it, you can find MLK’s I Have a Dream Speech here at AmericanRhetoric.com.

If you would just like to remember that specific  passage though, I’ve copied it here (remember this came at about 2/3 of the way through his speech):

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of “interposition” and “nullification” — one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; “and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.”

I always reference this speech when I teach my Presentation Skills for Attorneys seminars. Once, after one of my programs, an attendee came up to me and told me about a book his son had written discussing the speech. It is a terrific book and I recommend it – a very interesting historical look at the speech! The book is called “the Dream: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Speech that Inspired a Nation.” You can find it on Amazon (of course) and I am sure it’s in bookstores as well.

The speech is one of my favorites of all time. Every single person in all of my presentation skills courses (thousands at this point) have heard the phrase and know what it means – we always hear it on the radio, we probably read about it back in school. But when is the last time you listened to the whole thing, or read it the whole thing, if ever?

Take the time to do it now. It’s worth it.

 

 

 

Swing Music, Dancing & Dining at the Cicada Club

Posted on by Faith Pincus
21 Aug

Join
Gary Greene, Esq. & his Big Band of Barristers
featuring vocalists
Mary Stanford & Roxy Darr
at the world-famous Cicada Club
617 S. Olive Street, Downtown Los Angeles
on Saturday, September 29
7:00 pm Doors Open
8:30 pm Showtime

Travel back in time to the 1930s, 40s and 50s for a night of fabulous entertainment at one of the top supper clubs in Los Angeles. Gary Greene, Esq. & His Big Band of Barristers is joining forces with retro jazz vocalist Mary Stanford to create an epic show featuring the Great American Songbook with music from the Golden Era of Big Bands at the world-famous Cicada Club. Sensational singer Roxy Darr will also be performing with the band. Enjoy an elegant evening of live big band music, swing dancing and dining inside the historic 1928 Art Deco Oviatt Building in downtown Los Angeles. They’re pulling out all their favorite tunes from the birth of swing through the Rat Pack era. It will be a night to remember!

                                 
Mary Stanford                                                                                         Roxy Darr

Buy Tickets

Admission tickets are $30, but for a limited time you can pay an Early Bird price of $25. (Admission tickets are required for each guest with or without dinner purchase.)

Dinner tickets are $64 (but not required). The price includes a delicious three-course dinner.

Drafting CA’s Permanent Cannabis Laws

Posted on by Faith Pincus
cannabis
18 Jul

It’s been almost two years since cannabis was legalized for recreational use in California – and the business, economic and legal implications are profound.

Last Friday, California regulators published the first draft of permanent adult-use and medical cannabis laws.

This kicks off the process of hearings and public comment that will conclude at the end of 2018 with a final set of regulations governing the emerging industry.

Proposed laws fill the 315-page document, sent out by the Bureau of Cannabis Control, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and the Department of Public Health.

A few permanent regulations proposed in the document include:

  • Allowing licensed marijuana deliveries in any city or county in CA
  • Expanded restrictions on marijuana advertising which may appeal to children
  • Requiring marijuana event hosts to be more explicit about where:
    • licensed retailers will be set up
    • attendees can smoke or consume cannabis
    • sales will occur

Lori Ajax, chief of the Bureau of Cannabis Control, said, “The regulations we now propose include changes that make it easier for businesses to operate and strengthen public health and safety policies.” State agencies will hold ten public meetings around California through August to collect public comments on the proposed permanent laws. Comments may also be submitted by letter or email.

At our upcoming Recreational and Medical Marijuana Law and Business in California conference on November 1st-2nd, we’ll go in-depth on a variety of issues in this burgeoning industry for attorneys, investors and business operators. For those who serve clients in the cannabis industry and those attorneys who want to move into this space, our program will help you navigate the rules, regulations, and legal ramifications of legalized marijuana in California (and federal issues affecting the state’s cannabis industry as well). For investors and business people in the market (or thinking about entering the market) what do you need to know? What are the difficulties businesses face – from retail to growing and distribution? By the end of our conference you will be well-versed in most of the critical legal, business, and investment-related aspects of this rapidly expanding industry.