Writs of Administrative Mandamus 101: The Nuts and Bolts (CA) (OnDemand Streaming or Recorded Packages)

What You Will Learn

Part 1 Topics

Introduction and The Basics

• Terminology and types explained
• Uses and Prerequisites
• Goals
• Features, Rules, Procedure
• Judicial Review of What?
• Objections to Evidence
• The Record: What should be included

Administrative Adjudication Under the APA

• APA v. non-APA
• The Two Tiers under the APA
  • Tier 1 hearings, governed by Gov C 11500 et seq, covering licensing and other important areas
  • Tier 2 hearings, under Gov C 11400 et seq., covering unemployment, workers comp, coastal commission, and other important areas
  • Differences: who hears which type of case
• Writ petitions against private entities
• Dealing with pro per petitioners

Standards of judicial review and exhaustion of remedies 

• Standards of judicial review in administrative mandate cases under CCP §1094.5
  • Review of agency fact determinations under substantial evidence and independent judgment
  • Review of agency legal interpretations under Yamaha
  • Review of agency discretionary determinations under the arbitrary and capricious test
• Exhaustion of administrative remedies and the many exceptions to the exhaustion requirement

Part 2 Topics

The Process: Filing and opposing a petition for writ of administrative mandamus, including brief writing

• How they move through the system – what to expect
• Timeline and process of filing and opposing
• When to file a demurrer v. filing a return by way of answer
  • Affirmative defenses
• Discovery
• Drafting the Petition for Writ of Mandate and the Brief on the Merits, including:
  • Brief Writing advice;
  • Strategy for when petitions are combined (CCP § 1094.5 and § 1085]
  • Strategy for attorneys’ fees, Govt. Code 800 and §1021.5
    • Examples
    • Code sections for different actions (teachers, etc.)
• Drafting the Opposition Brief on the Merits

Stays
Stay of Operation (CCP 1094.5(g) and (h))

• Basics and Overview
• When to seek
• Prerequisites
• Notice
• Service
• Drafting Stay Application; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof
• Satisfying Court that public interest will not suffer from granting stay (1094.5(g))
• Satisfying Court that public interest will not suffer and of likelihood of success on the merits of writ petition (1094.5(h))
• Hearing on Application for Stay
  • Mini-Writ Hearing
  • Demonstrating Likelihood of Success

The Hearing and After the Hearing 

• The Hearing
  • Different counties and local rules
  • Experience of Judge and Clerks
  • Preparation
• Preparing the Judgment
• Notice of Entry
• Preparing the Peremptory Writ of Mandate
• Remedies – Remand v. Set Aside
• When you file a Return v. Appeal
• Attorneys’ Fees 

Testimonials

“The program was very insightful… this is a great course to become familiar with concepts.” – Shan Potts, Esq.

“Lots to cover, and very well done.” – Paul A Lax, Esq.

“It was very good – covered many details. Speakers were excellent.” – Gerald Hicks, Esq.

“Very informative and thorough.” – Ilissa Gold, Esq.

“I liked the content.” – Timothy W. Ohara, Esq.

“I thought it was very good.” – Robert Wainess, Esq.

“Excellent program, especially Asimow’s portion. I’m handling a writ for the first time and received an incredible amount of helpful information.” – Michael A. Miller, Esq.

“Pincus programs are always great sources of valuable information and this one is no exception. Also, I always appreciate how willing they are to make the programs and materials accessible.” –  Brian C. Unitt, Esq.

“Excellent. The specificity of the Sacramento examples was very practical and helpful — taking it out of the academic and referring to real nuts-and-bolts helpful pdfs/courts to look to, etc.” – Maha H. Ibrahim, Esq.

“Very informative. Good layout.” – Alaina Dickens, Esq.

“The training was very informative, and I appreciated having 3 speakers go over different aspects of the writs of Administrative Mandamus.  I was satisfied in that I was able to learn about a process I had little knowledge of before. I appreciated the first presenter’s discussion on the basics of writs of administrative mandamus.”

“Very informative. I thought Majam-Simpson did a good job explaining the basics and breaking it down for individuals who may not know a ton about writs. I really liked the PowerPoints and the chart breaking down the APA. I enjoyed when Asimow talked about the applicability of the cases into practice. It was very helpful.” – Amanda Pertusati, Esq.

“Very thorough presentation and useful handouts.” – Brian C. Unitt, Esq.

“I loved the webinar format — you could see the speaker and the slides at the same time, and the tabs to toggle between questions and materials and to download materials from the webinar rather than having to go back and search through emails. I think this is the best CLE webinar format I have encountered so far (between pre and now COVID world, I have taken PLI, CELA, NELA, and various education law professional association CLE offerings online). Content was excellent; very informative.” – Maha H. Ibrahim, Esq.

“Very thorough coverage on an obscure area that I’m working on for first time.” – Michael A. Miller, Esq.

“Very informative. Great overview of issues re: Admin Writs.”  – Alaina Dickens, Esq.

“Very satisfied.” – Adrienne Hahn, Esq.

“This was a really great webinar. I felt it was a good balance of overview with detailed information. I have a much better understanding now of the standards of review, how the APA applies/doesn’t apply, and the basics of writ practice.”

“Good program – well put together.” – Christopher Johns, Esq.

“I thought the program was great, and I appreciate that it was broken up into two days.  I thought the speakers were complimentary of each other, and each presented interesting but different information.” – Maha H. Ibrahim, Esq.

“The program offered both a thousand-foot overview, as well as specific and thought-provoking anecdotes by practicing professionals. Very enlightening.” – Jenna Eyrich, Esq.

“Great course! Covered the basics very clearly and provided helpful practice tips. I represent a lot of clients in writs of administrative mandamus, and I wanted to learn new and helpful insights.” – Mark Allen, Esq.

”Excellent program!” – Harrison D. Taylor, Esq.

“Very well done. Presenters were highly qualified and effective. Loved the practical experience shared with group as well as the law.” – Richard Hansberger, Esq.

“It was a good, thorough program.” – Jeff Wilcox, Esq.

“Speakers were very knowledgeable and articulate.” – Larry Schapiro, Esq.

“This seminar was spot-on.” – Carlo Coppo, Esq.

“Outstanding program – sorely needed!”

“Came to see the Oracle again! Professor Asimow is always relevant to my State work!” – Tim Morgan, Esq.

“My sincere thanks to Pincus Professional Education for the generosity to inner city law center. This training will help us serve our vulnerable clients.” – David Aigboboh, Esq.

“Very helpful.” – Robert Jystad, Esq.

”Excellent presentations!” – Edward J. Johnson, Esq.

“Thank you for offering scholarships for public interest attorneys. We greatly value access to these trainings to improve and grow the practice of our staff attorneys.”

”I attended this seminar to better prepare for responding to Writ of Mandamus petitions by a County agency. This course was extremely informative as to the petitioner’s and respondent’s responsibility.” Kari Martin-Higgins, Litigation Paralegal.

“I appreciated the information on what to do in an Administrative Hearing. It will be useful at the time of writ proceedings.” – Kimberly Smith, Esq.

”Great seminar. Every speaker was fantastic and covered all aspects of this topic in a logical, digestible manner. Very informative.”

“Super informative. Thank you. Lots of concrete tools, suggestions, things I didn’t know I wasn’t aware of. I found it to be incredibly informative.”

“Speakers and content are very good.”

“Very helpful for those of us new to this area of law.”

“Excellent. The speakers were knowledgeable regarding the content, and they effectively and efficiently communicated the information. Great webinar.”

“I find writs of mandate to be confusing and these presentations helped break down some of the issues for me.”

“Overall, the information presented was great.”

“Good; thorough.”

“Educational.”

“I thought it was informative and the presenters were good.”

“Rich in information, knowledgeable speakers.”

“Very knowledgeable, expert speakers.”

“Very Informative program.”

“I thought it was a good and informative session!”

“Excellent.”

“Today was awesome.”

“Broad Coverage of the topics was appreciated.”

“The webinar was great. The material was informative and the speakers were wonderful.”

“Very good. Very useful and lots of good information. Writ practice can be very opaque because the statutes are unclear.”

“Excellent content.”

“Great information.”

“Very informative, I learned a lot.”

“Excellent as always.”

“The program was very helpful. The explanation of the legal issues, combined to practical scenarios, provided a great working understanding of this area of practice.”

“Always excellent.”

“I like that it was spread over two sessions! Great job.  This was a strong overview of civil writ practice in the superior court. Thanks!”

“Pamela Graham and Bryce Gee did a great job.”

“The speakers were good. The information was helpful overview of administrative mandamus.”

“Good background on law and standards of review.”

“Asimow is an excellent presenter – clear, step by step logical progression, good examples, answered questions.”

“All the speakers were great.”

“I learned helpful details for writ review at the trial court and appellate court level.”

“Overall, very useful/informative. Lots of concrete examples and nuances to consider.”

“The explanations and handouts were straightforward and made the writ of administrative mandamus process easier to digest.”

“Presenters were informative.”

“Very informative. Answers to the questions were good.”

“All three were very good in their presentations.  Thorough coverage.”

“Very informative and great tips.”

“The program was very helpful. The instructors were great.”

“Part 2 was helpful regarding the procedures for filing and the hurdles for getting to the hearing.”

“Very thorough.”

“It was very excellent and helpful. I thought the first two presenters were outstanding.”

“The speaker clearly knows what he’s talking about and gave helpful tips.”

“I appreciated how comprehensive the program is. I was satisfied with how extensive and detailed the program was.”

“Great stuff on mandamus challenges to adjudicatory decisions.”

“This program was awesome!  Part II speakers were excellent.  All 3 of them.  In Part I, the third speaker was by far the best, though the second was also helpful.”

“Very worthwhile for our practice.”

“Great speakers!”

“Excellent as usual. Met my expectations.”

“This program was very helpful. The practical types, combined with the supporting authorities, was great.”

“Very good.”

“Excellent panel all around.”

“All speakers were excellent. Completely satisfied.”

“[Speaker did a] really great job moderating & presenting during her session – good use of examples & involving the panel. Very engaging… great at leading the group.”

“Asimow is clearly a wonderful educator & Professor. Knowledgeable, clear, practical, and had an excellent pace.”

“More than satisfied!”

“Great command of materials and presentation of challenging ideas.”

“Good basic course.”

“The speakers provided good practical examples… and were very knowledgeable and competent in their fields.”

“The content was relevant, useful and practical.”

“As a new attorney, this program has me looking forward to future CLE opportunities.”

“Excellent!”

“Good moderator! [Speaker was] great at adding humor to the topic.”

“Good speaker… engaging tone and informative slides.”

“Well organized.”

“Excellent and informative.”

“Great, clear, practical. Really excellent group.”

“Great organization & content.”

Faculty

Michael Asimow, Esq.
Dean’s Executive Professor of Law
Santa Clara Law School

Michael Asimow teaches at Santa Clara Law School.  He was previously a long-term visiting professor at Stanford Law School and is a professor of law emeritus at UCLA.   Asimow teaches contracts, administrative law, income tax, and law and popular culture. 

In the area of administrative law, he is a co-author of the California Practice Guide–Administrative Law, published by the Rutter Group.  He also co-authored a law school course book,  State and Federal Administrative Law (5th ed., 2020).  Asimow has written numerous articles on state and federal administrative law as well as comparative administrative law.  He is a consultant to the Administrative Conference of the United States.

Lesley Beth Curtis, Esq.
Partner
Langenkamp Curtis Price Lindstrom & Chevedden, LLP

Lesley Beth Curtis practices labor and employment law on behalf of unions and employees, and specializes in plaintiff-side labor, employment and education law. She has represented employees in a wide range of employment issues, including in discipline, dismissal, and layoff actions, as well as in appeals of denial of disability benefits and other benefits before private arbitrators, the California State Office of Administrative Hearings, various public boards, the Superior Courts of numerous counties, and the Third District Court of Appeal. She has multiple published Court of Appeal decisions, and has worked to expand the rights of teachers and employees through advocacy. She has also represented private employees in gender discrimination and pregnancy discrimination suits. Ms. Curtis is a California Teachers Association Group Legal Services Attorney, and has defended teachers in layoff, tenure and discipline matters and has enforced the Education Code rights of faculty, teachers and classified aides in a variety of settings.

Education: Ms. Curtis obtained her undergraduate degree from Claremont McKenna College in 1993, where she graduated Phi Beta Kappa, and was awarded the Berger Award for Outstanding Senior Woman and the William H. Alanshah award for Student Leadership.

Ms. Curtis is a 1996 graduate of the King Hall School of Law, University of California at Davis where she was on the Moot Court Team and Moot Court Board. She was selected by the law school as a National Member of the Order of the Barristers for excellence in oral advocacy. Immediately after graduating, Ms. Curtis served as a judicial clerk for the Honorable Elaine Watters of the Sonoma County Superior Court in a multiple defendant capital trial.

Ms. Curtis was admitted to practice in California in December 1996, and is admitted to practice law in the State of California and before the California Federal District Court of the Eastern District of California.

Bryce Gee, Esq.
Partner
Strumwasser & Woocher LLP

Bryce Gee’s practice focuses on government, education, and election law. He represents local governments, public agencies, and public officials in a wide range of matters and has significant experience in litigation over initiative, referendum, and recall measures, candidate statements, and ballot designations and arguments.

Recently, Mr. Gee served as special trial counsel to the California Department of Insurance in a three-year long administrative enforcement action against a health insurer being prosecuted for violating state insurance laws, which resulted in a 3 million penalty imposed on the insurer. Mr. Gee has also advised and represented the City of San Gabriel in a variety of government and election law matters, including serving as special elections counsel to the City in an election contest arising out of the 2013 municipal election and overseeing an independent investigation of the City’s election practices. Other representative cases include Friends of Loma Linda v. Verjil, No. E040974, 2008 WL 3845407 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2008); Preserve Shorecliff Homeowners v. City of San Clemente, 158 Cal. App. 4th 1427 (2008); and Padilla v. Lever, 463 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc).

Mr. Gee has successfully argued in trial and appellate courts and has significant trial experience.

Mr. Gee graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Cornell University with a B.A. in Economics, and received his J.D. from Yale Law School. In law school, he served as an editor and on the admissions committee of the Yale Law Journal.

Pamela K. Graham, Esq.
Senior Counsel
Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC

Pamela Graham is Senior Counsel and a member of Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley’s litigation practice group.  Pamela’s practice covers a wide range of litigation matters, including land use, employment law, municipal finance and public revenues, medical marijuana, and water issues. Her current engagements include defending Goleta Water District and the City of Santa Barbara against challenges under Proposition 218 to their water rates; litigating civil code enforcement actions for the City of Pasadena against illegal medical marijuana dispensaries; defending the City of South Pasadena in a writ of mandate action challenging aspects of the City Council’s approval of a conditional use permit for a hydrogen fueling station; and defending the City of Sierra Madre in a dispute arising from a code enforcement action against an unpermitted home improvement project.

Pamela has broad litigation experience in both state and federal courts, handling all phases of litigation from the pleading stage through appeal. She has successfully defended a number of jury and bench trials.

Prior to joining Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, Pamela was an attorney in the commercial litigation workgroups at Irell & Manella LLP for seven years and at Drinker, Biddle & Reath LLP for five years. There, Pamela represented a diverse range of clients in the entertainment, retail, and other prominent Southern California industries in a variety of commercial litigation matters, including cases involving business torts, employment disputes, securities fraud, and trademark and copyright litigation.

Pamela earned her law degree magna cum laude from Loyola Law School in 2001. While at Loyola, Pamela served as the Chief Production Editor of the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. She was also the recipient of the Dean’s Academic Scholarship from 1999 through 2001, as well as the First Honors Award in legal research and writing, torts, and federal courts. Pamela earned her Bachelor of Arts in journalism and mass communication and political science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1996.

Immediately following law school, Pamela served as a law clerk to the Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew of the United States District Court, Central District of California.

During her legal career, Pamela has advocated pro bono for the rights of children in the foster care system. Partnering with the Alliance for Children’s Rights, Pamela has assisted over 25 families with the finalization of adoptions and advocated for lawful individualized education plans and services. Pamela has also worked with the March of Dimes for the past 10 years, bringing awareness to and fundraising for the fight against premature birth.

Pamela has served as adjunct faculty at Southwestern Law School, where she taught legal analysis, writing and skills, and at California State University, Northridge, where she taught advanced business law.

Michael J. Levy, Esq.
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
Travis Credit Union

 Michael J. Levy is Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Travis Credit Union, a billion organization based in Vacaville, California, with a quarter-million members across 12 counties. He sits on the Executive Leadership Team, and is responsible for Legal, Compliance, and Regulatory Affairs.

Levy has a diverse career including 20 years with the State of California, 9 years in private practice, and a year as a volunteer deputy district attorney. His most recent state service was as Deputy General Counsel for Litigation for the California Department of Insurance, where he supervised the teams that handle producer licensing and discipline, enforce the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, approve property and casualty rates under Proposition 103, and enforce the Insurance Frauds Prevention Act for false claims presented to private insurers. Prior to the Department of Insurance, Levy served as Secretary/Chief Counsel to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, Chief Counsel to the California Energy Commission, General Counsel to Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Senior Staff Counsel at the State Water Resources Control Board. Before his work with the state, Levy worked in private practice handling complex litigation, appeals, estate planning, and probate administration.

 Across Levy’s career, he has amassed a diverse and successful portfolio of litigation experience in a variety of disciplines, both in the public and private sector, and in some of the most complex legal fields including administrative, statutory, and constitutional. He has participated in or handled cases under Proposition 103, the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, the tax limitations of Propositions 13 and 26, utility-rate surcharges, the constitutional power of the Public Utilities Commission, the Legislature’s authority to select the manner of judicial review of agency actions, as well as challenges to a variety of quasi-adjudicatory and quasi-legislative agency actions. His experience includes compliance with virtually all aspects of government law, including the open meeting acts, rulemaking, adjudication, public records, public contracting, and political ethics, to name a few.

Levy is an active volunteer. He is a member of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Credit Union Advisory Committee, a commissioner on the California Access to Justice Commission, served two terms as a Supreme Court appointee to the State Bar Trustees Nominating Committee, was president of the Sacramento County Bar Association, has held several appointments as a Judge Pro Temp of the Sacramento Superior Court, served on the City of Davis Planning Commission, Natural Resources Commission, and Governance Task Force, and is a Appellate Mediator for the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, and formerly the First Appellate District.

Levy earned an LL.M. (cum laude) in natural resources and environmental law from Northwestern School of Law, Lewis & Clark College (1998), a J.D. from the University of San Diego (1991), and an A.B. from U.C. Davis (1988).

Andrea Price, Esq.
Partner
Langenkamp, Curtis, Price, Lindstrom & Chevedden, LLP

Andrea Price practices labor and employment law on behalf of unions and employees, and specializes in plaintiff-side labor, employment and education law.

Ms. Price is trained and experienced in conducting neutral workplace investigations for employers, and she has investigated varied workplace complaints, including sexual harassment, whistleblower, and retaliation allegations. Ms. Price is an Association of Workplace Investigations Certificate Holder.

Ms. Price represents employees in a wide range of employment issues, including in discipline, dismissal, and layoff actions, as well as before private arbitrators, the California State Office of Administrative Hearings and the Superior Courts of numerous counties. She has also represented private employees in gender discrimination and pregnancy discrimination suits. Ms. Price is a California Teachers Association Group Legal Services Attorney, and has defended teachers in layoff, tenure and discipline matters and has enforced the Education Code rights of faculty and teachers in a variety of settings.

Ms. Price obtained her undergraduate degree from University of California at Berkeley in 1999. She is a 2003 graduate of the King Hall School of Law, University of California at Davis where she was on the Mock Trial Honors Board and worked as a King Hall Outreach Program mentor.

Ms. Price was admitted to practice in California in December, 2003, and is admitted to practice law in the State of California and before the California Federal District Court of the Eastern District of California.

As a California Teachers Association Group Legal Services Attorney, Ms. Price performs training sessions throughout Northern California for teachers on a variety of legal issues, including on Education Code rights, sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation.

Ms. Price is a member of the California Bar Association Labor and Employment Chapter, the Sacramento County Bar Association Labor and Employment Chapter, Women Lawyers of Sacramento, and the Asian Pacific Bar Association of Sacramento (ABAS).

Ms. Price represents children pro bono through the nonprofit KIND (Kids in Need of Defense).

Steven L. Simas, Esq.
Founding Member
Simas & Associates, Ltd.

Mr. Simas is the founding member of the firm and graduated from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, with a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration and King Hall, University of California, Davis School of Law with his Juris Doctorate. He served as a Deputy Attorney General (DAG) in the employment law section of the Office of the Attorney General in Sacramento and as the Chief Consultant to the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment in the California Legislature.

In 1997, he received a gubernatorial appointment as counsel to the Public Employment Relations Board where he served for two years. Mr. Simas has also served as a Temporary Judge for the Sacramento Superior Court, Small Claims and Traffic Divisions since 1998, and was the Chair of the Sacramento County Bar Association, Administrative Law Section in 2005 and 2006. He is also a member of the San Luis Obispo County Bar Association, Vice President for the Sacramento Region of the California Academy of Attorneys for Health Care Professionals, and a member of the Claims and Litigation Management Alliance, and the American Veterinary Medical Legal Association.

Mr. Simas is admitted to practice before the United States District Court, Eastern and Central Districts of California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. He has three published appellate opinions in the California Supreme Court and courts of appeal. 

Amit Singh, Esq.
Senior Counsel
Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Permanente

Prior to earning his J.D. from McGeorge School of Law in 2016, Mr. Singh obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from the University of California, Santa Barbara in 2012. Mr. Singh graduated McGeorge with great distinction and as a member of both the Traynor Honor’s Society and Dean’s Honor List. While at McGeorge, Mr. Singh became a published writer and editor for the University of Pacific Law Review. He also competed in the 2015 American Bar Association Negotiation Competition in San Diego and served as a semester-long judicial extern for the Honorable Morrison C. England Jr., Chief Judge for the Eastern District of California. Mr. Singh’s academic achievements include earning three Witkin Awards for academic excellence in administrative law, business associations, and remedies. Mr. Singh also served as a certified legal intern at the Sacramento County Office of the Public Defender.

Fees

Seminar Materials are included with OnDemand and all recorded package options.

OnDemand Streaming!  On-Demand Streaming allows for a single person to view the seminar unlimited times until one year after the seminar is held.

Recorded Packages!  Recorded Packages allow for a single person to download and view the program recording and are also available via DVD or CD.

Discounted rates are available for 2-4 attorneys at your firm.  Licenses are available for law firms or agencies that would like to distribute the video package or OnDemand Streaming access to more than four attorneys at their firm or agency.

Fees:

OnDemand Streaming:  $429

Recorded Packages via Download or CD/DVDs:

Video Recording – DVD or Download: $429

Audio Only (for in your car, etc.) Recording – CD or Download:  $429

Order both the Video and Audio Only Packages for only $50 more – Download, DVD or CD: $479

$8.50 shipping and sales tax (in California) are added at checkout to DVD/CD orders.

Your OnDemand access is good for up to one-year from the time of purchase.  Please be sure to select OnDemand Streaming to the right and check out. OnDemand can be watched from any type of device.

*The Video recording is a video of the webinar (with sound). The Audio Only recordings are audio files only and are for those who wish to listen to it without watching a video (such as in the car or while walking).

Note: OnDemand Streaming can be watched from any device. However, all download packages must be downloaded to a computer first, before transferring them to another device due to downloading as zip files containing both the video/audio and a large folder with seminar materials contained in the download package.

CLE Credit

CA General: This program is approved for 6.5 general CLE units in California.

CA Participatory Certified Legal Specialist: This program is approved for 6.5 units of Legal Specialization Credit in Appellate Law in California. (Expires 09/13/2024)

CA Self Study (only) Certified Legal Specialist: This program is approved for 6.5 units of Legal Specialization Credit in Appellate Law in California. (Expires 09/13/2027)

NY General: This course is eligible for approval, under New York’s CLE Approved Jurisdiction policy, for 6.5 CLE units. Pincus Professional Education is a CA Accredited Provider, which is a NY approved jurisdiction. See Section 6 of the New York State CLE Board Regulations and Guidelines for further information.

This program is approved for CLE in the states listed above.  Upon request, Pincus Pro Ed will provide any information an attorney needs to support their application for CLE approval in other states other than what is listed above. Many attorneys ask for this and are approved in other state