Current News and Events from the State Bar of California Business Law Section.
Here is your June News from the Business Law Section (“BLS”):
In this 40th Anniversary Year of the Business Law Section (BLS), the Section and its 15 substantive law Standing Committees invite you to join us at networking events, educational programs and committee business meetings at the upcoming Convention of Sections on August 18-19, 2017 in San Diego, California, to be held at the Sheraton San Diego Hotel & Marina. All BLS members and friends are especially encouraged to attend our BLS Annual Breakfast (Saturday, August 19, 7:30 a.m. to 9 a.m.) and our BLS Networking Reception (Saturday, August 19, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.). To register for the Convention of Sections, click here.
At the two-day Convention of Sections, more than 100 speakers representing most of the 16 Bar Sections will present 36 timely and informative educational programs approved for MCLE credit. BLS programs include our Nonprofit Committee’s “Top 10 Landmines Lawyers Can Trigger When Advising Nonprofit Organizations,” the Internet and Privacy Law Committee’s “Basic Legal Skills to Advise Clients Doing Business Online,” and the Corporation Committee’s and Partnership and LLC Committee’s “Legal Advice for Newly Formed Companies.” Business law attorneys will also find many other programs that could benefit their practices. For a brochure listing all Convention events and MCLE programs, click here.
BLS friends start Saturday morning at the BLS Annual Breakfast with keynote speaker, Chris Cramer, co-founder of the San Diego-based Karl Strauss Brewing Company, who will impart a successful entrepreneur’s perspective on “Pioneering San Diego’s Craft Beer Industry: Challenges and Rewards for Doing Business in California.” Also at this event, we will present the BLS’s coveted Lifetime Achievement Award to a longtime member of the BLS. This award is given annually to a “member of the State Bar who over an extended period has made significant contributions to the Section or to business law generally in the State of California and who has achieved high status in the legal community.”
At day’s end on Saturday, starting at 5 p.m., leaders of the BLS, along with our counterparts in the Litigation Section, will host the Business Law and Litigation Sections’ Networking Reception. The reception will allow leaders from the two Sections to engage and interact collaboratively as we move toward a new era in which all 16 Sections of the State Bar will become part of a voluntary nonprofit association.
As previously reported, the BLS is committed to working with other Sections of the State Bar as we move toward separation from the quasi-governmental State Bar, to make sure the new voluntary IRC section 501(c)(6) nonprofit association that will house the Sections will be fully functioning when enabling legislation passes both houses of the State Legislature and is signed into law by the Governor. Our networking event will allow us to recognize and reward those individuals who stepped up and carried much of the load in the serious work behind separation and give the Sections the opportunities that separation from the public agency will bring.
The legislation (SB 36) is presently before the Assembly Judiciary Committee for its consideration and input, and then will move to the Assembly for a vote sometime in July. If all stays on track, we expect that the Sections will emerge into the new entity as early as January 1, 2018. Thus, the Convention of Sections this coming August will give us a timely, up close and personal opportunity to engage with our many friends in the BLS and in other Sections to share ideas and build for the future.
I hope to see many of you at the August 18-19, 2017 Convention of Sections in San Diego. If you attend, please seek me out, or any other member of the BLS Executive Committee, and introduce yourself. We’d love to get your feedback on how the BLS is doing and to answer any questions you may have regarding the impending separation from the mandatory Bar.
Jim Hill, Chair of the Business Law Section
Scroll to the end of this news item for a handy link to the presentations!
The Agribusiness Law Committee assembled an extraordinary group of speakers, including leading research professors from UC Davis and UC Berkeley, as well as industry leaders and attorneys specializing in intellectual property and regulatory issues, to present a one-day comprehensive program on genetic engineering in agriculture.
Steven Meyer of Downey Brand reports that this program was a deep dive designed to go beyond the headlines to learn about the varied and complex technologies in the genetic engineering/editing of plants and animals in agriculture. And these insights, in turn, provided context to presentations that thoroughly explored the policy and legal issues involved in these technologies.
Dr. Pamela Ronald’s presentation on Advancing Sustainable Agriculture through Plant Genetics provided an overview of the technology and its history with crops, and highlighted its success with bringing back the papaya industry to Hawaii. From Dr. Alison Van Eenennam, the participants learned about the application of gene editing technology to animals and its potential as a solution to a variety of animal diseases, as well as an improvement in food production. Professor Kent Braford then reviewed in detail advances in gene editing and its application to maize, rice, and tomatoes, as well as the heavy regulatory costs of bringing such edited crops to market.
Participants also learned from Dr. Peggy Lemaux about the potential of using gene editing to prevent citrus greening, a disease that has devastated Florida orange growers and threatens the industry in California.
Mike Ward of Morrison Foerster gave a short course on how to protect plant intellectual property, and his colleague Bill Tarantino reviewed the federal regulatory framework that governs genetic engineering in plants, as well as the issues presented by non-GMO label claims. And finally, Tom Marrs of Downey Brand reviewed the status of the recently enacted federal labeling law.
For those interested in learning more, all of the presentations can be found here.
This program was organized by Committee members Stephen Meyer of Downey Brand, as well
Tom Marrs of Downey Brand, and Dennis Albiani.
Agribusiness Law Committee Officers:
Baker Manock & Jensen, PC
Vice Chair of Programs
Rynn & Janowsky LLP
Vice Chair of Publications
California Farm Bureau Federation
Wednesday, July 19, 2017, 12 noon - 1 p.m.
This program offers 1 hour participatory MCLE credit.
The new non-profit accounting standards will change financial classifications and statement presentations. Join us for an overview of general non-profit accounting principles, the new accounting standards and relevant 2017 tax changes.
Speakers: Janet Holland and Deborah Kaminski
Thursday, July 20, 2017, 12 noon - 1 p.m.
This program offers 1 hour participatory MCLE credit.
Debtors are entitled to the protections of the automatic stay and discharge injunction, but secured lenders still have enforceable rights. This program by a debtors’ attorney and mortgage servicers’ counsel will break down what debtors are entitled to demand and what servicers may (or must) do with respect to a residential loan.
Speakers: Judith Descalso and Diane Stanfield
Thursday, July 27, 2017, 12 noon - 1 p.m.
This program offers 1 hour participatory MCLE credit.
The speakers will discuss several California appellate cases from the past 3 years that interpret the rules for and limitations on collection of real estate secured debt--for example:
o The requirements that real estate secured lenders pursue their real estate collateral before the borrower personally and the many potential traps of the "one form of action" rule
o The limitations on deficiency judgments for any unpaid loan balance after the application of proceeds from foreclosure of the real estate collateral
o How these limitations apply to the guarantors of real estate secured loans and recent case law that interprets the "sham guaranty" defense
o Whether borrowers may bring a lawsuit to challenge the foreclosing entity’s standing to foreclose, before or after foreclosure
o Whether a group of borrowers may join together--outside of the context of a class action--and sue their common lender for alleged misrepresentations about their loans
o The speakers will also discuss recent legislation, and pending legislation, that affects real estate secured lending
Speakers: Monique Jewett-Brewster and Michael Slattery
The Corporations Committee will be presenting a program at the Convention of State Bar Sections at 4pm on August 19th in San Diego entitled "Legal Advice for Newly-Formed Companies."
Committee Co-Chair Douglas Wade, Committee Secretary Evan Pickering, and Committee advisors Robert Rugani and Julie Ryan will be the presenters. The Committee will not be meeting in July.
“If my clients are regularly sending out regular messages about what they are thinking, where they are going, and what they are doing, I would want to be part of that!” Richard Susskind
The first step to using Twitter professionally is the hardest: beginning.
What’s in it for you and your clients?
Twitter is not just something for our kids (or grandkids). There are more than 70 million active Twitter users in the United States, and more than half are older than 25 and more than a quarter are older than 35. They are using twitter to exchange information and ideas.
You probably already attended seminars on the ethics and firm guidelines for social media. For a month, everyone probably changed their profiles on Linked-in every week - - because that seemed like business development. Then, nothing happened. There are three phases of Twitter, but you need to get started:
Sign up at https://twitter.com/signup. You will need to provide your full name, a cell phone number and password. Twitter uses the cell phone number to send a verification text. Once you’ve signed up you will need to select a username. @[my name] is ideal if it is available. Note: the online tutorial will explain the process, but not what stuff did or how it was useful.
Phase 1. I lurked (Ego Delituit).
My first step was to search for a young partner, Jack, who I knew used twitter. Our firm remains a suit and tie shop, but his twitter picture was of a guy drinking a beer at a ball game. Jack’s self-description (which I later learned is a valuable way for people to search for you by common interests) was “lawyer and beer drinker.” I learned a valuable insight. He had convinced our firm that twitter was critical for business development by never letting senior management see what twitter was.
I clicked on “FOLLOW” and his tweets would flow automatically into the twitter version of an inbox. His first tweet followed what soon became a familiar pattern – a short message enticing me to click on the link to a blog, article, or picture - - in 140 characters or less. The links themselves were short, encoded so that you wouldn’t know where you would go next. It read:
I didn’t know anything about declining crowd funding, but it was clear that he was using twitter to direct those interested in the craft brew business to his blog. Later tweets included a birthday picture of his dog, Daisy. Happy birthday, daisy.
Too much information. But, Jack explained that people wouldn’t follow something they thought was purely marketing. Social media was about being social. I needed to add a description to my twitter profile that described my interests. To follow Jack’s business and social advice, I choose “Cyber Security, Creditor’s Rights Lawyer (who can referee Soccer).”
When I set up my twitter account, I was very concerned about security. So, I set up the account so that I had to approve anyone who wished to follow me, and went home for the weekend. The next Monday, I had twelve follower requests. All adult film sites. Way too social. I declined their requests. (Really.)
Twitter suggests that you follow five people. I started following three: a professional group (the American Bankruptcy Institute- @abiworld); a newspaper (the Wall Street Journal - @WSJ) and a blogger on the US Supreme Court ( @SCOTUSBlog). I found that each would send a tweet when they published something, with a link to the specific article. That meant I didn’t need to use the internet to check what was on the news site’s home page. Moreover, they would “re-tweet” information from individuals they were following. I would click on information about these individuals (whom I already knew were interested in stuff that I liked) and explored who they were following. Within a couple of months, I was following nearly 400 twitter users.
A natural choice you may wish to follow upon joining Twitter is the California State Bar’s Business Law Section, which you can follow at: @CalBarBusLaw.
The information I get checking twitter breaks down into three main areas: (a) business; (b) soccer; and (c) news. Business: I learn immediately whenever the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or any of the other courts that I follow issues a new decision by following the courts’ twitter account. Soccer. I follow my favorite sports columnists, although sometimes I will stop following the extreme users who seem to post every incident that happens in every match. News. Before I learned to waste time on twitter, I used to waste a lot of time by going to lots of news websites and checking out what was happening. By following the media twitter feeds, however, I no longer check websites. Instead, I quickly scan the titles of articles that come through twitter to see what I want to read.
Phase 2. I published. (Ego scribe).
Since I was learning about new cases directly from the issuing courts, I decided I would tweet (or retweet) what was happening. With only 140 characters per tweet, most courts tweet the name of the decision and a link to the court’s webpage for the decision. I decided that it would be better to explain briefly what the court did than the name of the case. Moreover, twitter can automatically shrink the size of the link to the court’s website. My first business tweet was:
#CalBarILC 9thCirBAP decides that common sense is legal reasoning and not a skill. [cite]
I’m sorry the adult film sites missed out on this revelation.
The #CalBarILC is a hashtag for Tweets sent out by the BLS’ Insolvency Law Committee. Hashtags start with a #. They make it possible to search for all related tweets on the same subject. If interested about what is happening at the US Supreme Court, search for #SCOTUS.
Phase 3. I discuss (Ego de).
While reading and posting can be somewhat uncomfortable, it is called “social media” for a reason. Twitter, some say, is for discussions.
Users of social media want to interact. They want to discuss issues. Simply posting or retweeting is not enough. We must engage the audience. One way to do so is to ask a question, rather than just pose the answer. This tends to engage others on Twitter who are looking for an opportunity to be heard.
For those interested in their own twitter life, my advice is to give it 15 minutes at the end of each day. Follow someone. Tweet something. Discuss events that matter.
BLS Social Media Coordinator
Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek
San Diego, California
Courtesy of CEB, we are bringing you selected legal developments in areas of California business law that are covered by CEB’s publications. This month’s feature is from the April 2017 update to California Law of Contracts. References are to the book’s section numbers. See CEB’s BLS Landing Page for special discounts for Business Law Section members. The most significant legal developments since the last update include developments on as the following topics, among others:
April 2017 Update
Contract Formation and Interpretation
In Vita Planning& Landscape Architecture, Inc. v HKS Architects, Inc. (2015) 240 CA4th 763, 773, the court held that the absence of signatures did not render a written agreement unenforceable when the parties "conducted themselves as though they had an agreement." There was no dispute that the plaintiff had performed the contract and the defendant had accepted the plaintiff's performance. See §4.40.
In Hot Rods, LLC v Northrop Grumman Sys. Corp. (2015) 242 CA4th 1166, 1176, the court found that a sentence in an integration clause stating that "no extrinsic evidence whatsoever may be introduced in any judicial proceedings involving this Agreement" expressed the intent of the parties "to bypass the general rule that consistent extrinsic evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a contractual provision." The court held that the clause was not against public policy and that it precluded the admission of extrinsic evidence in this case. See §5.34.
In Jenks v DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary (2015) 243 CA4th 1, the court held that an integration clause in an employee's termination agreement did not override the arbitration clause in the employee's prior employment agreement because the termination agreement did not address dispute resolution. See §5.36.
The doctrine of unconscionability is a defense to contract enforcement; it can be used to invalidate a contract provision or even an entire contract. Carbajal v CWPSC, Inc. (2016) 245 CA4th 227, 242. A finding of unconscionability involves a two-step analysis. To be unenforceable by reason of unconscionability, the clause or clauses at issue must have been both procedurally unconscionable and substantively unconscionable at the time the contract was made. Baltazar v Forever 21, Inc. (2016) 62 C4th 1237, 1243; Performance Team Freight Sys. Inc. v Aleman (2015) 241 CA4th 1233, 1248 (no evidence presented to demonstrate procedural unconscionability; therefore, agreements could not be deemed unconscionable). See §5.75.
Procedural unconscionability exists when the manner in which the contract was negotiated subjected the beleaguered party to oppression and surprise. See, e.g., Penilla v Westmont Corp. (2016) 3 CA5th 205, 214 (mobile home rental agreement failed to disclose prohibitively expensive arbitration fees, was not provided in Spanish language or explained to tenants who did not understand written English); Carbajal v CWPSC, Inc. (2016) 245 CA4th 227, 244 (agreement was adhesive and failed to identify governing arbitration rules, and defendant failed to provide plaintiff with opportunity to review rules before signing); Carlson v Home Team Pest Defense, Inc. (2015) 239 CA4th 619, 632 (high level of procedural unconscionability; agreement was nonnegotiable; employee had to sign or else lose job offer and had no opportunity to review dispute resolution policy or applicable arbitration rules). See §§5.76, 9.44.
Substantive unconscionability may take many forms, but it can be described generally as "overly harsh," "unfairly one-sided," or "unreasonably unfavorable" contract terms. It requires a substantial degree of unfairness beyond "a simple old-fashioned bad bargain." Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v Moreno (2013) 57 C4th 1109, 1145. See also Baltazar v Forever 21, Inc. (2016) 62 C4th 1237, 1245; Sanchez v Valencia Holding Co. (2015) 61 C4th 899, 911. Many recent cases have focused on application of the unconscionability doctrine to arbitration clauses and other contract provisions that make it difficult or impossible for employees or customers to recover on valid claims. See, e.g., Baltazar v Forever 21, Inc., supra (arbitration clause in employment agreement enforceable); Penilla v Westmont Corp. (2016) 3 CA5th 205 (mobile home rental agreement substantively unconscionable; it imposed arbitration fees that were unaffordable or would have deterred tenants from asserting claims, unreasonably shortened limitations periods for claims, and limited remedies); Carbajal v CWPSC, Inc. (2016) 245 CA4th 227, 253 (arbitration clause with injunctive relief carve-out, waiver of injunction bond requirement, and waiver of employee's right to attorney fees substantively unconscionable). See §5.77.
If one or more terms in a contract are found to be unconscionable, the court must then determine whether the unconscionable provisions are severable so that the remaining parts of the contract can be enforced. If the court finds that the unconscionable provisions have tainted other sections of the contract, it may deny enforcement of the contract altogether. See, e.g., Carbajal v CWPSC, Inc. (2016) 245 CA4th 227, 254 (three substantively unconscionable terms in arbitration clause supported denying severance); Carlson v Home Team Pest Defense, Inc. (2015) 239 CA4th 619, 635 (multiple substantively unconscionable terms not severable). See §5.79.
By a specific reference in the arbitration agreement, the parties may delegate to the arbitrator the issue of arbitrability. Mohamed v Uber Techols., Inc. (9th Cir 2016) 836 F3d 1102. See also Sandquist v Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 C5th 233, 241 (arbitrability of issue of availability of class-wide arbitration determined by parties' agreement). See §9.41.
Under both the California Arbitration Act (CAA) (CCP §§1280–1294.2) and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (9 USC §§1–16), there is a presumption in favor of arbitrability.Any doubts as to whether an arbitration clause applies to a particular dispute are to be resolved in favor of arbitration. Sandquist v Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 C5th 233, 247. There is no public policy, however, favoring arbitration of disputes that the parties have not agreed to arbitrate. See Sandquist, 1 C5th at 252 ("[t]o presume arbitrability without first establishing, independently, consent to arbitration is to place the proverbial cart before the horse"). See §9.41A.
In Rice v Downs (2016) 248 CA4th 175, 185, the court held that when the parties agreed to arbitrate "any controversy between the parties arising out of this Agreement" (248 CA4th at 189), the arbitration clause did not encompass claims for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, or rescission. See §9.41B.
In Carlson v Home Team Pest Defense, Inc. (2015) 239 CA4th 619, 635, the court found multiple one-sided substantively unconscionable terms, including terms requiring employees (1) to arbitrate all nonexempt claims while the employer retained access to courts; (2) to make an arbitration request setting out all employee claims or else waive them; (3) to submit to pre-arbitration dispute resolution but forbidding them to be represented by counsel during this process; and (4) to pay an arbitration filing fee and thereafter share all fees and expenses of arbitration. See §9.44.
In Baltazar v Forever 21, Inc. (2016) 62 C4th 1237, the court held that an arbitration agreement signed as a condition of employment was not substantively unconscionable. Among other things, there was no oppression or sharp practices by the employer, and the plaintiff was not manipulated into signing. See §9.44.
In Judicial Council of Cal. v Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (2015) 239 CA4th 882, the court held that a company that allowed its contractor's license to lapse after a corporate reorganization and then internally assigned a contract to a properly licensed related entity did not strictly comply with Bus & P C §7031. The contract was therefore illegal and unenforceable. See §3.37.
If the promisor's discretion is limited, e.g., if it is subject to limitations such as fairness or reasonable notice, then the promise is not illusory and the contract is enforceable. The party with discretion must exercise it in accordance with the standard of good faith and fair dealing. Harris v TAP Worldwide, LLC (2016) 248 CA4th 373 (employer's unilateral right to modify arbitration agreement limited by implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; therefore, agreement was not illusory); Serafin v Balco Props. (2015) 235 CA4th 165, 176 (same). See §3.48.
Civil Code §1589 provides that an acceptance of the benefits of a contract constitutes an assumption of the obligations associated with it. See Harris v TAP Worldwide, LLC (2016) 248 CA4th 373 (acceptance of job offer meant acceptance of well-noticed arbitration agreement); Vita Planning & Landscape Architecture, Inc. v HKS Architects, Inc. (2015) 240 CA4th 763, 773 (no dispute that subcontractor performed and general contractor accepted performance). See §4.31.
A claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract may arise from unauthorized use of screenplays, literary works, or ideas. See, e.g., Ryder v Lightstorm Entertainment (2016) 246 CA4th 1064, 1073 (for implied contract claims, there must be substantial similarity between plaintiff's idea and defendant's work to support inference of use by defendant). See §4.34.
In Robinson v U-Haul Co. of Cal. (2016) 4 CA5th 304, the court of appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of a permanent injunction under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus & P C §§17200–17210) that prohibited U-Haul from attempting to enforce a noncompete covenant in its dealer agreements. The trial court found that U-Haul knew the noncompetition covenant was illegal when it inserted the covenant in its dealer agreements, yet U-Haul continued to try to enforce the clause. See §6.38.
Civil Code §1439 reflects the common law rule that breach or failure of a material condition precedent may excuse the other party from performance. A party cannot recover for the other party's breach of contract unless the first party has fulfilled his or her obligations. Alki Partners, LP v DB Fund Servs., LLC (2016) 4 CA5th 574, 592 ("party's failure to perform a condition precedent will preclude an action for breach of contract"). See §6.43.
In the absence of an express assumption by the assignee, an assumption of contractual obligations may be implied from the assignee's acceptance of the benefits under the contract. In effect, an acceptance of the benefits of the contract by the assignee operates as an estoppel. See Jenks v DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary (2015) 243 CA4th 1, 15; Vita Planning & Landscape Architecture, Inc. v HKS Architects, Inc. (2015) 240 CA4th 763, 773. See §7.13.
In Bozzio v EMI Grp. Ltd. (9th Cir. 2016) 811 F3d 1144, relying on California case law, the Ninth Circuit held that a third party beneficiary could sue the promisor for breach of contract even though the promisee was a corporation that had been suspended for nonpayment of taxes and, therefore, lacked the capacity to sue on its own behalf. See §7.62.
CEB is currently offering discounts to BLS Members, including 10% off the price of a wide selection of CEB print and OnLAW publications as well as savings on section dues. For more information on these and other CEB discounts, click HERE.
The Business Law News (BLN) is seeking articles of general interest to business law practitioners for its next publication. With approximately 8,200 members, the BLS has a wide-ranging audience. The BLN is not only circulated to BLS members in print every quarter, it is also available to BLS members on the internet at www.calbar.ca.gov. Please submit your articles to the new editor-in-chief, Kenneth Minesinger (firstname.lastname@example.org).
A subscription to the BLN is one of the most significant membership benefits of the BLS. Publishing in the BLN is a terrific opportunity both to influence the discourse in the areas in which you practice and to market yourself and your skill set. Now is your chance to participate!
You can find the BLN’s submission guidelines HERE. Finally, have you been interested in getting involved in the BLS but don’t know where to start? BLN is now seeking enthusiastic section members to join its Editorial Board. You can find more information about the BLN Editorial Board HERE and the application to join BLN HERE.
The 15 BLS Standing Committees publish eBulletins announcing developments in their respective areas of law and upcoming events open to BLS members. Click HERE to sign up to receive eBulletins from any BLS Standing Committee completely free of charge.
We all know that social media can help drive new business. Did you know that the BLS maintains a presence on LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook where it posts regular updates about new cases, new regulations, key legislative developments, and news and events from the BLS’s Standing Committees? What you may not know is that you can not only send items to the BLS to post or tweet, but also suggest items from your own social media pages for the BLS to re-post, re-tweet, or like. Doing so expands the reach of what you have to say to everyone who likes or follows the BLS on its various social media platforms, and may result in the BLS following you! Please submit your suggested items for consideration or direct any questions to BLS Social Media Coordinator, Dennis J. Wickham (email@example.com); BLS Vice-Chair of Member Services, Uzzi O. Raanan (firstname.lastname@example.org); or BLS Chair, James P. Hill (email@example.com), and join the ever expanding discussion!
Standing Committees continue to accept applications to fill vacant seats. Practitioners and other legal professionals who are members of the BLS and who have at least five years of experience are eligible to apply. Membership on a committee affords unique opportunities to participate in the creation of law in your practice area, to get to know and be known by other practitioners, to work with the recognized leaders in your field, and to stay on the cutting edge of developments and practice techniques. Membership is a rewarding experience that keeps one ahead of, and in touch with, business law developments. Most committees meet once a month, often by phone. A full list of the Standing Committee meeting dates for March are listed below. A description of the required commitment and application process, along with a link to the application, can be found HERE.
The BLS achieves its goals through the work of its 15 Standing Committees. You are invited to attend the regular monthly meeting of any BLS Standing Committees (see below for meeting dates). These monthly meetings provide attendees an excellent opportunity to chat with committee members and other lawyers with a similar expertise. Some committees even offer free MCLE credit! Please see the contact person listed below to RSVP or request more information. Follow us on Twitter @calbarbuslaw. Use a Standing Committee’s hashtag to search for tweets by that committee in its designated field and to re-tweet.
For a list of upcoming meeting dates and contact persons, see Standing Committee Meetings HERE.
Jennifer Duncan, Editor-in-Chief
Kristina Del Vecchio, Contributing Editor
Corey R. Weber, Contributing Editor
Dennis J. Wickham, Contributing Editor
Uzzi O. Raanan, BLS Vice Chair, Member Services
James P. Hill, BLS Chair
For contact information, see the Executive Committee Roster HERE.
To join the BLS and receive membership benefits (including an opportunity to earn 6 FREE MCLE Ethics Credits)