August 25, 2016

Two Law Legends and CBA-CLE Recognized by International CLE Organization for Legal Publication: Limited Liability Companies & Partnerships in Colorado

StarburstAwardsLogoThe Association for Continuing Legal Education (ACLEA), an international continuing legal education organization, awarded Colorado Bar Association CLE (CBA-CLE) with the Award of Outstanding Achievement in the publication category for its business law book Limited Liability Companies and Partnerships in Colorado.

Lidstone-SparkmanAttorneys Herrick Lidstone, Jr. and Allen Sparkman, two business law legends in Colorado, have taken a complex subject and written a clear, concise treatise on how to structure a business. The criteria for an ACLEA award include excellence in style, innovation, and content, in addition to the book’s appeal to a broad spectrum of the legal community. CBA-CLE Assistant Executive Director Dawn McKnight says, “We are extremely honored to win this award and grateful to have as authors two legends in the field, Herrick Lidstone and Allen Sparkman. Their vast experience, diligence, and thoroughness are evident throughout the book. They spent countless hours researching, writing, and revising this treatise to make it a comprehensive guide for practitioners.”

ABOUT THE BOOK:

Partnerships and other business entities have a fascinating history going back thousands of years.  Now in the twenty-first century, the variety of ways in which a new business may be formed and operated has made this a complex and especially important practice area.  Limited Liability Companies and Partnerships is a business law treatise for practitioners as they advise clients on issues from the time of a business’s formation to the time of dissolution. Topics include: choice of entity, formation and dissolution of the entity, creditor rights, securities and tax issues, as well as ethical considerations.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

Lidstone_HerrickHerrick Lidstone, Esq. is a shareholder and managing director of Burns Figa & Will, P.C. in Greenwood Village, Colorado. Mr. Lidstone practices in the areas of business transactions, including partnership, limited liability company, and corporate law, federal and state securities compliance, mergers and acquisitions, contract law, tax law, real estate law, and natural resources law. Mr. Lidstone’s work includes the preparation of securities disclosure documents for financing transactions, as well as agreements for business transactions,

limited liability companies, partnerships, lending transactions, real estate and mineral property acquisitions, mergers, and the exploration and development of mineral and oil and gas properties.

SparkmanAllenAllen Sparkman, Esq. practices law in Denver and Houston as a partner of Sparkman + Foote LLP. Mr. Sparkman’s practice includes the areas of business transactions, securities, tax, and professional responsibility. Mr. Sparkman’s work includes the preparation of securities disclosure documents for start-up companies in a variety of fields, including offshore oil and gas exploration, foreign mining operations, real estate, and comic book certification. He also regularly prepares LLC and partnership documents, and represents buyers and sellers of businesses, including preparing or reviewing all necessary legal documents.

ABOUT CBA-CLE:
Colorado Bar Association CLE (CBA-CLE) is the nonprofit educational arm of the Colorado Bar Association and the Denver Bar Association. We produce high-quality continuing legal education programs and legal publications for attorneys and legal professionals.

Dr. Ulrich Herrmann, Chief Judge of the III Civil Panel in Germany, to Speak at Brown Palace

Herrmann_pic_02The Colorado Bar Association International Law Section and the Colorado Chapter of the German American Chamber of Commerce are hosting a luncheon with Dr. Ulrich Herrmann, Chief Judge of the III Civil Panel of the Supreme Court of Germany. Dr. Herrmann will discuss the refugee crisis, Brexit, and political freedom of speech.

Dr. Herrmann was appointed presiding justice of the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) and chairman of the 3rd Civil Panel on August 4, 2015. The Bundesgerichtshof is the German Federal Supreme Court for civil, family, and criminal cases. As chairman of the 3rd Civil Panel, his jurisdiction includes state liability, liability of notaries, service contracts, mandate law, law of private foundations and several other subjects. Dr. Herrmann was first appointed to the Justice of the Federal Court of Justice and to the 3rd Civil Panel in December 2003. He has additionally served as judicial tasks representative for the court on IT matters since March 2007.

Dr. Herrmann began his law career as an assistant at the Institute of Civil Procedure and Insolvency Law of the University of Bonn, writing his doctoral thesis on “The Principle Structure of a Pending Civil Law Suit” (Die Grundstruktur der Rechtshängigkeit). He was appointed as a judge at the Regional and the Local Court of Bonn in February1990. Over the following seven years, Dr. Herrmann served first as presidential and later as presiding judge of the Regional Court of Frankfurt (Oder) in the state of Brandenburg. Here he was also responsible for the personal matters of the judges of the district court.

In August 1998, Dr. Herrmann became judge of the Higher Regional Court of Brandenburg, where he continued to take responsibility for the personal matters of regional judges. In December 1999, he became chief of staff of the Brandenburg Ministry of Justice and in December 2002, he was appointed vice president of the agency for legal exams of the state of Brandenburg.

He originally hails from the city of Bonn in North Rhine Westphalia. He is married and has two children, aged 24 and 30 years old.

The program will take place on Friday, August 5, 2016, from noon to 1:30 at the Brown Palace. To register, call (303) 860-1115, ext. 727, or email lunches@cobar.org.

Commercial/Preference Owned Business in the Commercial Marketplace

Editor’s Note: This article is reprinted with permission courtesy of Richard F. Busch, II,  www.rbuschlaw.com. All rights reserved.

By Richard F. Busch, II, Esq.

Why should an otherwise commercial company consider entering the Government market place as a prime contractor, vendor, or subcontractor at any level, especially if you can qualify for a preferred status (Veterans, SDVOSB, or Women Owned Small Business? 

Due to the growth in technology, the Government has determined that the commercial business sector must be the primary force to develop and provide the products and services they need to achieve society’s goals. Consequently, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) and the individual agency supplements have been revised to become much more “commercial” friendly in most situations. If the potential contractor is a “commercial” business engaged in supplying commercial products or services, many of the complex requirements simply do not apply. Except for a very limited number of government unique provisions, most clauses are negotiable. In addition, there are award goals set by Federal statute that define prime contracting goals for small businesses, veteran owned small businesses, women-owned small business, Service Disable Veteran Owned Small Businesses, and more.

The following are some general points a commercial/preference business should consider:

  • Just over $573B DoD 2016 proposed spending plan and an additional $163 B for Veterans Affairs programs (total government budgets much bigger)
  • Limited government audit rights for commercial companies with commercial products
  • Terms and conditions more conducive to commercial application (subject to the unique mission of the government)
  • Over 11 Million commercial supplies (products) and services at volume discounts offered on GSA Schedule contracts
  • Favorable research and development terms if negotiated correctly
  • Commercial pricing based on the market—(Government does request the best commercial prices under like terms and conditions)
  • Electronic Payment with automatic interest on due and payable amounts for late payments
  • Joint venture, teaming arrangements, and subcontract opportunities in addition to prime status purchases

The government market sector has vast potential for a company that has the resources and products/services to benefit the goals of the government. If a company is considering doing business with the government, the effort must be based on one simple principle—DO IT RIGHT!

© Busch Law Firm LLC (2016)

Richard Busch, II, is a solo practitioner at The Busch Law Firm, which is a boutique government contract practice firm. His practice involves all aspects of government contracts, commercial contracts, conflict management systems design, ADR, and white collar crime. More specifically, his practice focuses on the formation and administration of contract relationships through the utilization of a proactive approach of addressing the objectives of the relationship, requirements for successful performance, and the resolution of disputes. Mr. Busch has extensive experience in negotiating complex business issues involving high technology and major weapons system contracts, contract compliance issues, and resolving both internal and external disputes involving the business organization. Richard has reviewed and negotiated multimillion dollar solicitations, proposals, equitable adjustments, terminations, and other related government acquisition and commercial-based contract matters with a number of government agencies and subcontractor/vendors. He concentrates on the legal issues facing a corporation doing business with the government or its prime contractors in the areas of construction, high technology, major weapons systems, and information⁄communication technology. Mr. Busch has worked with corporations, the DoD, and other government agencies in the highly structured areas of classified contracts. As a result, he has gained a wealth of experience in dealing with classified authorities pertaining to these agencies. Prior to entering private practice, Mr. Busch held positions as General Counsel of a multi-billion dollar product area with a Fortune 50 defense contractor and a legal advisor to the Director of Contracts at the National Security Agency (NSA).  Mr. Busch earned an L.L.M. (Government Contract Designation) from George Washington University National Law Center, a J.D. from the Hamline University School of Law, and a B.A. from Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri.

The opinions and views expressed by Featured Bloggers on CBA-CLE Legal Connection do not necessarily represent the opinions and views of the Colorado Bar Association, the Denver Bar Association, or CBA-CLE, and should not be construed as such.

 

CLELogo

CLE Program: Finding Federal Contract Work — Meet the Attorneys, Veterans, the SBA and Bankers Your Clients Need

This CLE presentation will occur on September 16, 2016, at the CBA-CLE offices (1900 Grant Street, Third Floor), from 9 a.m. to 4:10 p.m. Register for the live program here or register for the webcast here. You may also call (303) 860-0608 to register.

Can’t make the live program? Order the homestudy here: CD • MP3Video OnDemand.

New and Revised Ethics Opinions Address Unbundling, Missing Clients

The Colorado Bar Association’s Ethics Committee has released Formal Opinion 128, addressing missing clients, and has revised Formal Opinion 101, addressing unbundling of legal services. Formal Opinion 128, “Ethical Duties of Lawyer Who Cannot Contact Client,” addresses situations where a client disappears at some time during the representation, or situations where a lawyer is retained by an insurance company to represent an insured but cannot locate the client. The CBA Ethics Committee opines that the lawyer should continue to act on behalf of the client in order to preserve legal rights, as long as the actions do not conflict with other ethical rules. The Committee also notes that the lawyer should take reasonable steps to locate the missing client.

Formal Opinion 101, “Unbundled Legal Services,” was revised by the Ethics Committee and reenacted as a new opinion. Formal Opinion 101 addresses unbundled legal services, where a lawyer undertakes part of the representation for a client but does not provide full services, such as in situations where a client cannot afford the full range of legal services but retains a lawyer to “ghostwrite” pleadings. The Ethics Committee incorporated the changes to Colo. RPC 1.2(c), which rule specifically allows limited representation, and the amendments to C.R.C.P. 11(b) and 311(b), which allow “ghostwriting” of pleadings. The opinion discusses the rule changes and their significance to lawyers in limited representations.

These rules and more will be discussed at CBA-CLE on July 26, 2016, at a breakfast program: “Ethics Rules Changes – Effective April 6, 2016.” Speakers Marcy Glenn, David Stark, and Jamie Sudler will discuss the new and revised rules and their implications for practitioners. Click the links below to register, or call (303) 860-0608.

 

ET072616L

CLE Program: Ethics Rules Changes — Effective April 6, 2016

This CLE presentation will occur on July 26, 2016, at the CBA-CLE offices (1900 Grant Street, Third Floor), from 8:30 a.m. to 9:50 a.m. Register for the live program here or register for the webcast here. You may also call (303) 860-0608 to register.

Can’t make the live program? Order the homestudy here: MP3Video OnDemand.

The Ethical Danger of the Microsoft/LinkedIn Merger

Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared on Stuart Teicher’s blog, “Keeping Lawyers Out of Trouble,” on June 16, 2016. Reprinted with permission.

Headshot-Stuart-TeicherBy Stuart Teicher

This week it was announced that Microsoft is buying LinkedIn. There are some hidden attorney ethics implications about which we all need to be aware.

A review of the recent news articles announcing the acquisition reveals that a key motivating factor in Microsoft’s purchase of LinkedIn was access to LinkedIn’s data.  Of course, sharing data is nothing new. But when companies improve their ability to share our data across various platforms, my ears perk up. Not just because it’s creepy or because of obvious privacy implications. The type of data sharing they’re contemplating in the Microsoft/LinkedIn combination makes me worry about confidentiality (and other) issues.

Why they are merging:

According to the Wall Street Journal, Microsoft sees a critical synergy with LinkedIn:

“LinkedIn’s users are, arguably, Microsoft’s core demographic. They also offer Microsoft something it has long sought but never had—a network with which users identify. Microsoft needs to persuade LinkedIn users to adopt that identity, and use it across as many Microsoft products as possible.

Access to those users, as well as the enormous amounts of data they throw off, could yield insights and products within Microsoft that allow it to monetize its investment in LinkedIn in ways that the professional networking site might not be able to. [Microsoft CEO] Mr. Nadella already has mentioned a few of these, including going into a sales meeting armed with the bios of participants, and getting a feed of potential experts from LinkedIn whenever Office notices you’re working on a relevant task.“

In other words, Microsoft wants to have your Outlook and other Microsoft software products speak to your LinkedIn profile. The intersection of that data is valuable—various sellers of products and services would be willing to pay for it.

It appears that Microsoft wants to be able to read through the work we do on their products like Word, review our upcoming appointments in our Outlook calendar, search for keywords in our emails, and then find connections with people with our LinkedIn connections. That’s what they are searching for—connections they could monetize.

For instance, let’s say accountant X has an Outlook Calendar appointment which sets a meeting with “Charles McKenna of Account-Soft Corp.” Microsoft could then search LinkedIn and it would learn that McKenna works for a company that sells workflow management software. Well, now Microsoft knows the accountant is in the market for workflow management software… and they could sell that knowledge to other software companies who would then direct solicitations in the accountant’s direction. That’s an annoyance for an accountant, but a potential ethics disaster if he/she were a lawyer.

Basic issue, Confidentiality:

If Microsoft scours our Word documents and emails, then there could be Rule 1.6 confidentiality issues.  That’s so obvious that we don’t need to spend time talking about it now. I think the more unusual issues come from the Calendar function…

If they leverage the data in our Calendar, it could reveal our client relationships:

The substance of what we learn from the client is confidential, but so is the very existence of the lawyer-client relationship. Will the integration of these platforms make it easier for people to figure out who we represent?

Think about how much information Microsoft could piece together from our Calendar. They might see a potential client introduction (which lists Pete Smith as present), a court appearance (which lists Pete Smith as present), and a meeting for settlement purposes (which lists Pete Smith as present). It’s not going to be too tough for the Microsoft bots to figure out that Pete Smith is your client.

If they leverage data in our Calendar, it could reveal key substantive information that could harm the client:

If Microsoft looks at our Calendar they can see that we’re heading to a particular locale. They might then cross reference our LinkedIn connections and send a message to one of them that says something like, “Your connection Bruce Kramer is going to Chicago next week. Why don’t you look him up?”

That heads-up might give someone the incentive to look into our movements a bit more… and who knows what they could find. What if that info was given to a real estate agent that we know in Chicago… and maybe we are representing a successful land owner… and we’re clandestinely scouting a real estate purchase because we don’t want people to figure out that we’re there on behalf of our deep-pocketed client… because if they know, the purchaser will run up the price. That LinkedIn message tipped off the real estate agent and it could cost the client a lot of money.

If they leverage data in our Calendar, it could end up revealing a misrepresentation:

Imagine that Client A asks you to accompany them to a meeting in Los Angeles. You tell her that you can’t go because you’ll be on vacation on the East Coast. That’s not true, however. The truth is that you’ve already scheduled a meeting with a potentially new client in Los Angeles. You didn’t want Client A to know that you’d be in town because you didn’t want to have to shuffle between clients—it would just be too much work. You could have told Client A that you’d be in town but you didn’t have time to meet her, but you thought she’d be insulted. It was just easier to say you’re far away and be done with it.

Later, Client A gets a LinkedIn message that says, “Your Connection Mary Smith is going to be in Los Angeles next weekend… send her a message and try to link up!” Do you know what you are now? Busted. And not only do you have egg on your face, but you may also have committed an ethical violation.

Is the white lie that you told your client going to be considered a misrepresentation or deception per Rule 8.4(c)? That rule states: “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation…”

I know what you’re thinking… it was a half-truth. No harm no foul. Well, I searched the ethics code, and I didn’t find the term “white lie” or “half-truth” anywhere in the code. You should also note that Rule 8.4(c) does not require that the misrepresentation be “material.” It doesn’t allow you to lie about inconsequential things and there’s no modifying language- it just says that you can’t lie or deceive.

These are just a few issues. Some of these are clear ethics concerns, others are more akin to PR nightmares. Are they so terrible that we all need to get off LinkedIn right away? That might be a bit premature. After all, they only just announced the merging of the platforms- they haven’t actually done anything yet. I don’t know what dangers will actually be realized, or whether any dangers will be realized at all. What I do know is that part of being a responsible attorney in this technological age is to be diligent in thinking about these issues. As lawyers practicing in an ever-changing technological environment, we need to be aware of the potential problems. Keep your eye on the news and stay abreast about the details regarding the integration of these two platforms. Then, if you determine that you need to act, do so.  That way we are “keep[ing] abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” Comment [8], Rule 1.1.

Save the Date!

Stuart Teicher will be at the CLE offices on Thursday, September 8, 2016, to present two ethics programs. Registration is not yet open, but mark your calendars and don’t miss these important programs.

 

Stuart I. Teicher, Esq. is a professional legal educator who focuses on ethics law and writing instruction. A practicing attorney for over two decades, Stuart’s career is now dedicated to helping fellow attorneys survive the practice of law and thrive in the profession. Stuart teaches seminars and provides in-house training to law firms/legal departments.

Stuart helps attorneys get better at what they do (and enjoy the process) through his entertaining and educational CLE Performances. His expertise is in “Technethics,” a term Stuart coined that refers to the ethical issues in social networking and other technology. He also speaks about “Practical Ethics”– those lessons hidden in the ethics rules that enhance a lawyer’s practice. Stuart writes the blog “Keeping Lawyers Out of Trouble.”

Mr. Teicher is a Supreme Court appointee to the New Jersey District Ethics Committee where he investigates and prosecutes grievances filed against attorneys, an adjunct Professor of Law at Rutgers Law School in Camden, New Jersey where he teaches Professional Responsibility and an adjunct Professor at Rutgers University in New Brunswick where he teaches undergraduate writing courses. He is a member of the bar in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In 2014, he authored the book Navigating the Legal Ethics of Social Media and Technology (Thomson Reuters).

The End of Law Firms? Legal Service Delivery in the 21st Century

3e5ee2a2014 marked the 100th anniversary of World War I – the “Tipping Point” wherein the automobile forever replaced the horse as the predominant form of ground transportation in the modern era. In the three decades that followed World War I, livery stables closed and buggy whip manufacturers went out of business.

The Great Recession of 2008 has served as a “Tipping Point” of its own sort for the legal profession, where alternative legal services delivery models – LegalZoom for consumers and Legal Process Outsourcing companies (“LPOs”) for corporations – now challenge the monopoly that traditional law firms once held for legal services delivery. Prices for legal services are plummeting in a free fall. Competition for clients is at an all-time high, even as U.S. law schools churn out 44,000 new lawyers a year into a 100% saturated legal market. Corporate clients in the current buyers’ market are increasingly demanding lower, fixed prices and value-based Alternative Fee Arrangements (“AFAs”) in lieu of hourly billing – making law firms bear the ‘risk of loss’ in uncertain but complex litigation and transaction matters – even as the costs of running law firms continue to climb. To survive, most law firms have already morphed from their 1980s ‘Pyramid’ shaped organizational structures into ‘Diamond’ shaped organizational structures staffed by experienced attorneys – with virtually no associates to ‘fill out’ the base of once ‘Pyramid’ shaped law firm. But some commentators believe that this ‘Diamond’ shaped organizational structure is only a temporary change – like the hull of a great ship that rises out of the water before the whole thing sinks. What if in our lifetime we are watching the end of law firms, just as our great grandfathers watched the end of livery stables? From ‘Pony Express’ to ‘Federal Express’…

In this thought-provoking CLE presentation, attorney Mark Lassiter presents his vision of how the legal profession can ‘rise like the great Phoenix out of the ashes’ of its current malaise – all without traditional law firms. He argues that, if current legal trends continue unabated, the historic law firms as we have known them must become extinct – with the largest dying last. He does NOT argue that lawyers will not practice together with each other in communities or associations. Rather, he argues that such associations will look different from the traditional law firms of the 20th Century, which still prevail (for now…). He predicts a day when future lawyers will collaborate and work together on legal matters in Cloud based, temporary ‘teams’– not based on law firm allegiances or employment, but rather on their own, specific expertise and skill sets. In other words, the ‘mission’ (not the ‘law firm’) will drive and determine the lawyers and staff recruited to a temporary legal team – allowing clients to ‘cherry pick’ the best, most qualified lawyers and legal staff for the clients’ unique legal matters – with all legal work tasks being monitored and controlled from secure, Cloud-based portals. Such arrangements will empower solo and small practice lawyers, ‘Soccer Mom’ and ‘Disabled Dad’ lawyers, and young, new lawyers as never before.

If you are a new, small, solo or part-time lawyer you won’t want to miss hearing how the coming decades may actually be the best yet for attorneys like you. Come and watch this thought-provoking presentation from one of America’s emerging legal thought leaders.

 

CLE Program — The End of Law Firms? Rethinking Legal Services Delivery in the 21st Century

This CLE presentation will occur on July 19, 2016, at the CBA-CLE offices (1900 Grant Street, Third Floor). Register online or call (303) 860-0608.

Can’t make the live program? Register for the live webcast here.

The Internet of Things: A Disrupter? Precarious? The Jetsons?

IP_2016By John Ritsick, Esq.

Predictions about how much and how quickly technology will change the world can vary – we all can ask “where’s my flying car” now that the 2015 of “Back to the Future has come and gone and we still don’t have those flying cars. But the impact of The Internet of Things (IoT) will be significant, and the scope and scale can be mind-boggling. The IoT is the network of physical objects—devices, vehicles, buildings, and other items—embedded with electronics, software, sensors, and network connectivity that enables these objects to collect and exchange data. I work in the manufacturing industry and see the changes coming before they are close to the market, and I am constantly blown away by what we know is coming.

Nearly every industry and every type of tangible item is a potential participant in the IoT. The industries affected include automotive, transportation, city infrastructure, homes and household goods, retail stores—virtually all industries can potentially be incorporated into the IoT. Self-driving cars necessarily mean the car is connected to the Internet and is “smart” technology, but a self-driving car also means that other cars and vehicles are connected, that the roads the cars drive on and traffic systems are part of a larger environment, and that our emergency response services are connected as well.

I’ll be moderating a talk on the IoT at the 2016 Rocky Mountain IP & Technology conference in Denver in June. My colleague at Flex, Kenji Takeuchi, leads Products and Technology Management for the Flex’s Connected Living and IoT Software business. He’ll be talking about this subject and other thoughts on where technology is headed—it will be an insightful look into the future!

John Ritsick, Esq., is in-house counsel at Flex, a global leader In the categories of design, manufacturing, distribution, and aftermarket services. Find out more about the 2016 IP & Technology Institute at the links below.

 

CLE Program — 14th Annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property & Technology Institute

This CLE presentation will occur on June 2-3, 2016, at the Westin Westminster Hotel. Register online or call (303) 860-0608.

Can’t make the live program? Order the homestudy here: CDMP3

Top Ten Reasons to Attend the Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property Institute

Each year, Colorado Bar Association CLE hosts the Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property & Technology Institute, the “place to be for the best IP.” In case you haven’t yet registered for this year’s event, here are the Top Ten Reasons to Attend:

Top Ten Reasons to Attend the 2016 Intellectual Property & Technology Institute

10. Anyone who’s anyone will be there! And if you’re not there, anyone who’s anyone will know.
9. Patents … Trademarks …Copyrights … Licensing …Technology & Transactions!
8. Learn best practices and practical tips that you can apply immediately.
7. Special panels of USPTO patent judges and SPEs discussing developments at the USPTO.
6. Over 40 sessions presented by an all-star faculty of leading IP practitioners.
5. Grow your professional contacts through networking opportunities with IP attorneys from … well … from all over!
4. Receive the digital course materials AND the MP3 audio download for the ENTIRE Institute!
3. Some of the best from across the nation come together to share their knowledge & insights with you!
2. Annual case law updates of all branches of IP law.
1. This Institute has quickly become “the place to be for the best IP” in the western United States!

If that wasn’t enough to convince you, watch this video of Rocky Mountain Regional U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Director Molly Kocialski and Program Chair Nate Trelease explaining what you’ll learn at the Institute:

Don’t miss the 14th Annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property & Technology Institute! Register today.

CLE Program — 14th Annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property & Technology Institute

This CLE presentation will occur on June 2-3, 2016, at the Westin Westminster Hotel. Register online or call (303) 860-0608. Can’t make the live program? Order the homestudy here: CDMP3

Trait-Based Protection Under the ADAAA

roberto-corrada-fullBy Roberto Corrada, Professor
University of Denver Sturm College of Law

Professor Susan Carle of American University Law School thinks the “regarded as” prong of the ADA may be severely underutilized by plaintiffs seeking to challenge their termination. According to Carle, who delivered a lunch keynote address at the 2016 Colorado Bar CLE annual employment law conference, the ADAAA of 2009 amended the ADA in a way that greatly increased the potential effectiveness of the “regarded as” prong. The ADAAA, first, freed the “regarded as” prong of the requirement that the disability the employer regards an employee as having must significantly impair a major life activity. Employers now only have to “regard” an employee as having some impairment for the employee to be protected by the ADA. To balance this out, Carle emphasizes, the ADAAA did limit the “regarded as” prong a bit. So, the prong does not protect transitory or minor disabilities and the “regarded as” prong does not support requests for accommodation.

Professor Carle explains that it’s fairly clear now what is protected, but there’s a bit of ambiguity around how far the new protection goes. With respect to what is clear, if an employee has an injured back, but has a medical release to go back to work (can perform the essential functions of the job) and the employer says no, the employee is likely protected. Also, if an employee has an anxiety disorder and the employer finds the employee annoying (even though the employee can perform essential functions) and fires the employee, the employee is likely protected. Professor Carle, though, is interested in knowing whether the ADA might extend far enough to protect certain traits. For example, what if an employee has no diagnosed disability or has a disability that has not been disclosed to the employer? If the employer then looks at an employee “trait” that the employee possesses and “regards it as” a disability or impairment, is the employee protected by the ADA? For example, an employee suffers from depression and as a result fails to participate in workplace social gatherings or attends, but just sits in the corner. Is the employee protected from termination by the ADA “regarded as” prong?

Professor Carle believes that the ADA “regarded as” prong “can be of special help to persons with ambiguous or hidden impairments because it may very often be the very perception of ‘something weird/different/not right’ about the person that causes a negative reaction or discrimination rather than any limitation in relevant job-related abilities.” The big question is whether an employer who regards an employee as having a “social disorder” based on a trait is prohibited from acting on that trait in disciplining or terminating the employee? Does the trait have to be an effect of an actual disability or impairment? Professor Carle will attempt to make her case in an upcoming issue of the University of California Davis Law Review. Professor Carle’s argument does have some hope for unleashing the progressive potential of the ADA. After all, a foundational policy of the ADA is to have employers focus on the essential functions of the job in making employment decisions rather than indulging personal biases.

 

CLE Homestudy — Employment Law Conference 2016: Proactively Prepare for What Lies Ahead

This CLE presentation took place Wednesday, April 20, 2016, and Thursday, April 21, 2016. Order the homestudy here: CDMP3 audio.

 

Roberto Corrada, Mulligan Burleson Chair in Modern Learning and Professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, has devoted his scholarly attention to three primary areas: the rights of ethnic and sexual minorities; the public/private distinction in labor and employment law; and the scholarship of teaching and learning. A distinguished teacher, Corrada has been recognized for his innovative work in the classroom. He has received several awards, and was named a national Carnegie Scholar in 2000. He is also extensively involved in service work with local and national institutions, including chairing the board of the ACLU of Colorado in 1998 and helping form the Denver Urban Debate League, serving now on the Board of Directors.

Two Law Firm Hacks Should Be Scaring Your Firm Into Action

Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared on Stuart Teicher’s blog, “Keeping Lawyers Out of Trouble,” on April 4, 2016. Reprinted with permission.

Headshot-Stuart-TeicherBy Stuart Teicher

For years people have been warning that law firms of all sizes are major targets for cyber-criminals. If your firm didn’t take that seriously before, then there are two major hackings last week that should get your attention.

The Wall Street Journal reported that cyber criminals breached Cravath, Weil Gotshal, and several other unnamed firms (read the article here: http://on.wsj.com/1MzYlN2). The paper states that it’s not clear what (or whether) information was taken, but the focus is on the possibility of confidential information being stolen for purposes of insider trading.

The other major breach is so big that it has its own hashtag— search Twitter for #PanamaPapers or #PanamaLeaks.  According to Reuters, the target was a law firm in Panama who specializes in setting up offshore companies. Hackers stole data from the firm and provided that data to journalists who promptly revealed it to the public (read the article here: http://reut.rs/25GEy4X). The information allegedly reveals a network of offshore loans. According to the BBC, the stolen data reveals how the law firm, “has helped clients launder money, dodge sanctions and avoid tax” (read the BBC’s article here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-35918844). Political figures and friends of popular politicians are allegedly implicated, according to the report.

My concern is not about the obvious political ramifications. My concern is about the ethical ramifications to lawyers. The danger of hacking is real.

No report has implicated any type of ethical wrongdoing on the part of any firm. That needs to be restated and made abundantly clear: there has been no report of any evidence of ethical impropriety by any of the law firms mentioned in the news. I am bringing this to your collective attention because it should serve as a warning. Confidential client information was stolen from that law firm in Panama… which reminds us that we are targets.

All lawyers are targets. Small firms, large firms, in-house counsel, government lawyers, you name it. The bad guys know that lawyers are the custodians of valuable information and they are coming after us in a big way. The message for all of us is clear: you could be subject to an ethics grievance if you don’t take proper steps to secure your clients’ information.

The responsibility to protect our client information is nothing new. However, these recent events require us apply an increased sense of urgency to evaluating our compliance with that duty. Have you, or your firm, taken the necessary steps to adequately protect your clients’ information? Have you considered the fact that bad guys could be targeting you? What steps have you taken to counteract the potential piracy that could be aimed at your clients’ information?

You could be darn sure that someone is going to be asking those questions to the firms that were targeted in the hacks. Maybe you need to put yourself in their position and ask, “how would we fare if that review was directed toward us?”

Our duty of competence requires that we take appropriate steps to protect our clients’ confidential information. And remember that you, as the lawyer, have the primary ethical duty, not your IT people. Furthermore, various ethics opinions have held that, in some circumstances, the lawyer needs to understand the underlying technology itself.

If these issues weren’t on the front burner in your office before, these two hacks should be causing you to shift your priorities.

Quickly.

 

Save the Date!

Stuart Teicher will be at the CLE offices on Thursday, September 8, 2016, to present two ethics programs. Registration is not yet open, but mark your calendars and don’t miss these important programs.

 

Stuart I. Teicher, Esq. is a professional legal educator who focuses on ethics law and writing instruction. A practicing attorney for over two decades, Stuart’s career is now dedicated to helping fellow attorneys survive the practice of law and thrive in the profession. Stuart teaches seminars and provides in-house training to law firms/legal departments.

Stuart helps attorneys get better at what they do (and enjoy the process) through his entertaining and educational CLE Performances. His expertise is in “Technethics,” a term Stuart coined that refers to the ethical issues in social networking and other technology. He also speaks about “Practical Ethics”– those lessons hidden in the ethics rules that enhance a lawyer’s practice. Stuart writes the blog “Keeping Lawyers Out of Trouble.”

Mr. Teicher is a Supreme Court appointee to the New Jersey District Ethics Committee where he investigates and prosecutes grievances filed against attorneys, an adjunct Professor of Law at Rutgers Law School in Camden, New Jersey where he teaches Professional Responsibility and an adjunct Professor at Rutgers University in New Brunswick where he teaches undergraduate writing courses. He is a member of the bar in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In 2014, he authored the book Navigating the Legal Ethics of Social Media and Technology (Thomson Reuters).

The Colorado Lawyer Book Review: Limited Liability Companies and Partnerships in Colorado

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in the March 2016 edition of The Colorado Lawyer. Reprinted with permission.

ZLLCAP15Limited Liability Companies and Partnerships in Colorado 

by Herrick K. Lidstone, Jr. and Allen Sparkman
687 pp., plus CD-ROM; $109 ($99 for CBA members)
CLE in Colorado, Inc., 2015
1900 Grant St., Ste. 300, Denver, CO 80203
(303) 860-0608; www.cle.cobar.org

Reviewed by Keith M. Olivia

Keith M. Olivia is a member of Roberts & Olivia, LLC in Boulder, where he represents businesses and individuals in their transactional matters. He is also an adjunct faculty member at the University of Colorado School of Law, where he co-teaches the Entrepreneurial Law Clinic—kmolivia@wrrlaw.com.

Limited Liability Companies and Partnerships in Colorado is a practitioner’s guide that is primarily focused on Colorado limited liability companies (LLCs) and Colorado partnerships, including general partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, and limited liability limited partnerships. A typical chapter opens with a discussion of the relevant Colorado LLC law and then compares and contrasts the various Colorado partnership laws. In addition to the primary focus on Colorado unincorporated business entities, the authors frequently compare and contrast the Colorado law with the Delaware law on unincorporated business entities, especially when the Delaware law differs from the Colorado law or the Delaware courts have addressed a matter that has not been addressed by the Colorado courts.

The first chapter provides an interesting historical perspective of the development of partnerships (which date back to ancient times), limited partnerships, and LLCs. The early chapters address choice of entity issues and then walk the reader through forming the entity, drafting the operating or partnership agreement that governs the entity, and dissolving the entity. The chapters that follow focus on the rights and duties of members, managers, and partners; derivative actions filed by members on behalf of an LLC; the transfer of membership and partnership interests and the restrictions imposed on such transfers; creditors’ rights and theories of owner liability for the debts of the entity; the merger or conversion of LLCs and partnerships into other business entities; special uses of unincorporated entities, such as single or special purpose entities, joint ventures, and regulated businesses, including the practice of law; and the “Series LLC,” which provides for the segregation of assets under a single legal entity and is permitted under Delaware law but not yet under Colorado law.

Additional chapters address the applicability of the securities laws, income tax laws, and employment tax laws to LLCs and partnerships. The final chapters address the use of LLCs and partnerships for estate planning purposes, as well as ethical considerations, such as defining “who is the client” and potential conflicts of interest when the attorney represents multiple parties and enters into business transactions with the entity client.

The three appendices to the text are (1) a form operating agreement for a manager-managed, multi-member LLC, (2) a form operating agreement for a manager-managed, single-member LLC, and (3) an LLC formation checklist that summarizes the material points that counsel should consider when forming an LLC. Each of the appendices includes cross-references to where the relevant provisions are addressed in the text and annotations to the underlying law. The accompanying CD-ROM includes Microsoft Word versions of the form documents and a searchable table of authorities and subject matter index for the text.

Limited Liability Companies and Partnerships in Colorado is a comprehensive practitioner’s guide that is suitable for seasoned transactional attorneys who routinely form unincorporated business entities and attorneys who occasionally work with discreet issues related to Colorado LLCs and partnerships. The text is compiled into coherent chapters that thoroughly address the Colorado statutes for unincorporated business entities; other substantive areas of the law related to LLCs and partnerships that attorneys routinely address, such as tax law and securities law; and practical uses of limited liability companies and partnerships to address specific client needs, such as estate planning.

Colorado attorneys who work with LLCs and partnerships and who purchase this cost-effective reference tool for their law libraries will quickly recoup the cost. Attorneys will also appreciate the well-developed forms of multi-member and single-member operating agreements and the LLC formation checklist, whether they are used as a starting point for drafting documents for a client or to supplement clauses in practitioners’ existing form documents.

CLE Book: Limited Liability Companies and Partnerships in Colorado

Order this CLE book online here or call (303) 860-0608 to order.

Standard price: $109.00
CBA member price: $99.00

Preventing Legal Malpractice: Preservation and Spoliation of Evidence

At what point in litigation does a duty arise to preserve evidence? If your client deletes electronic files, can you be held responsible? What sanctions arise from failure to preserve evidence? These questions and more are addressed in the Colorado CLE handbook, Lawyers’ Professional Liability in Colorado: Preventing Legal Malpractice and Disciplinary Actions. Anna Martinez, a litigation attorney at Franklin D. Azar & Associates, PC, is the author of Chapter 29, “Preservation and Spoliation of Evidence”:

Learn about preservation issues and more at the Colorado CLE program, “Preventing Legal Malpractice 2016.” Two half-day programs will be offered for Preventing Legal Malpractice. On March 11, 2016, in Denver, CLE will host “Staying Above the Line,” where topics to be discussed will include Top Ten Ethics Complaints, Trends in Legal Malpractice, Intra-Firm Privilege, and Preservation and Spoliation of Evidence. Register here or call (303) 860-0608. On March 17, 2016, in Colorado Springs, CLE will present “Managing Risks.” Topics to be addressed at “Managing Risks” include Avoiding an Accidental Attorney-Client Relationship, Tech Traps, Trends in Legal Malpractice, and the Top Ten Ethics Complaints. Register here or call (303) 860-0608.

As an extra incentive, ALPS offers up to a 10% premium credit for each attorney in a firm who receives 3 CLE credits annually in the areas of ethics, risk management, loss prevention, or office management. ALPS is a lawyers’ malpractice carrier endorsed by the CBA. Learn more at try.alpsnet.com/Colorado. Additionally, HUB International is the endorsed broker for the CBA. HUB can help attorneys secure professional liability insurance in order to run a successful practice.

 

CLE Program: Preventing Legal Malpractice 2016 — Staying Above the Line and Managing Risks

Staying Above the Line — This CLE presentation will take place Friday, March 11, 2016, in the CLE Large Classroom in Denver. Register here for the live program and here for the webcast, or call (303) 860-0608 to register. Can’t make the live program? Order the homestudy here: CDMP3 AudioVideo OnDemand.

Managing Risks — This CLE presentation will take place Thursday, March 17, 2016, at the Double Tree Hotel in Colorado Springs. Register here for the live program and here for the webcast, or call (303) 860-0608 to register. Can’t make the live program? Order the homestudy here: CDMP3 audioVideo OnDemand.