Contra Costa Lawyer, May 2015

Contra Costa

LAWYER Volume 28, Number 3 | May 2015

Premarital Agreement Season is Here:

Give Your Approach a Tune-up

page 6

Does Your Client Have the Capacity

to Get Divorced?

page 9

Frozen Embryos: When Constitutional Law

Trumps Family Law

page 14

MAY 20152

Neither UBS Financial Services Inc. nor any of its employees provide legal or tax

advice. You should consult with your personal legal or tax advisor regarding

your personal circumstances. ©UBS 2012. All rights reserved. UBS Financial Services Inc. is a subsidiary of UBS AG. Member SIPC.

The headline says one thing.

The story says something else.

You want someone to help you make sense of it all.

That’s where we come in.

the novak group at ubs financial services, inc.bringing confidence to your financial decisions.

Perry A. Novak

Senior Vice President, Wealth Management

UBS Financial Services, Inc.

2185 N. California Blvd., Suite 400

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

(925) 746-0245

[email protected]

Perry is an active member of CCCBA, currently

serving on the board of the Business Law &

Corporate Counsel Section.

The Novak Group has been providing wealth

planning and asset management services to

affluent families, business owners and

professionals since 1983.

Please visit us at:

ubs.com/team/thenovakgroup

Contra Costa CoUntY Bar assoCIatIon CONTRA COSTA LAWYER 3

EDITORIAL BOARDSuzanne Boucher 925.933.1500Patricia Kelly 925.258.9300David Pearson 925.287.0051Samantha Sepehr 925.287.3540Andrew Verriere 415.699.0646James Wu 925.658.0300

Contra Costa

LAWYERVolume 28 Number 3 | May 2015

B A R A S S O C I A T I O N

The official publication of the

The Contra Costa Lawyer (ISSN 1063-4444) is published 12 times a year - 6 times online-only - by the Contra Costa County Bar Association (CCCBA), 2300 Clayton Road, Suite 520, Concord, CA 94520. Annual subscription of $25 is included in the membership dues. Periodical postage paid at Concord, CA. POSTMASTER: send address change to the Contra Costa Lawyer, 2300 Clayton Road, Suite 520, Concord, CA 94520. The Lawyer welcomes and encourages articles and letters from readers. Please send them to [email protected] CCCBA reserves the right to edit articles and letters sent in for publication. All editorial material, including editorial comment, appearing herein represents the views of the respective authors and does not neces-sarily carry the endorsement of the CCCBA or the Board of Directors. Likewise, the publication of any advertisement is not to be construed as an endorsement of the product or service offered unless it is specifically stated in the ad that there is such approval or endorsement.

Ericka AckeretDean Barbieri

Oliver BrayMary Carey

Wendy McGuire CoatsMichelle Ferber

CCCBA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Theresa Hurley | 925.370.2548 | [email protected]

CCCBA main office 925.686.6900 | www.cccba.org

2015 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Peter HassReneé LivingstonDavid MarchianoLaura RamseyKatherine Wenger

CO-EDITORSHarvey Sohnen

925.258.9300

Nicole Mills 925.351.3171

BOARD LIAISON Candice Stoddard

925.942.5100

COURT LIAISON Stephen Nash

925.957.5600

PRINTING Steven’s Printing

925.681.1774

PHOTOGRAPHER Moya Fotografx

510.847.8523

CONTRA COSTA LAWYER

Barbara Arsedo LRIS Coordinator

Dawnell BlaylockCommunications

Coordinator

Jennifer Comages Membership Coordinator

Emily Day Systems Administrator and Fee Arbitration Coordinator

Elizabeth Galliett Education and Programs Coordinator

Nicholas Casper Elva Harding

Philip AndersenJames Wu

Stephen Steinberg

PresidentPresident-ElectSecretaryTreasurerEx Officio

FEATURES

DEPARTMENTS

4 INSIDE | by Suzanne Boucher

5 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE | by Nick Casper

19 LAW PRACTICE MANAGEMENT SERIES 2015

20 CENTER | Theresa Hurley’s Welcome Celebration [photos] Comedy Night Invitation

24 CHILDREN, FAMILIES AND THE LAW (CFL) PROGRAM AT JFKU COLLEGE OF LAW | by Commissioner Josanna Berkow (Ret.)

27 FAMILY LAW AND YOUR LRIS | by Barbara Arsedo

29 ETHICS CORNER [MCLE SELF-STUDY] | by Carol M. Langford

32 INNS OF COURT | by Matthew Talbot

34 CALENDAR

38 CLASSIFIEDS

PREMARITAL AGREEMENT SEASON IS HERE: GIVE YOUR APPROACH A TUNE-UPby Anne Freeman

DOES YOUR CLIENT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO GET DIVORCED?by Cindy Frazier Bilsborough

IS YOUR CLIENT AN INNOCENT SPOUSE? by Christina Weed

6

11

9

FROZEN EMBRYOS: WHEN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TRUMPS FAMILY LAW (FROZEN SERIES PART 2)by Suzanne Boucher

14

DIVORCE AND THE CLOSELY-HELD CALIFORNIA BUSINESS OWNERby Erin D. Hollis

16

HOPKINS’ CHOICEby Justice James Marchiano (Ret.)

22

MAY 20154

A ttorneys who do not practice family law are always questioning how I can do family law, saying, “It must be so stressful!” Having practiced civil litigation for five years before

I opened my family law practice in 1996, I can confirm that all litigation can be stressful.

The thing that I like most about practicing family law is that no two cases or clients are the same, and there are so many interesting issues that arise—from child cus-tody and child development issues to child and spousal support.

There are also complex property issues including valuing businesses, real estate and retirement plans, tax consequences and bankruptcy issues, estate planning and litigation over pre- and postmarital agreements, etc.

Family law cases have the potential to cross over with almost every other practice area. It was my goal for this edition of the Contra Costa Lawyer to highlight a few of the crossover issues that can arise in a family law case.

Anne Freeman’s article “Premarital Agreement Sea-son is Here: Give Your Approach a Tune-up” discusses issues that arise before the wedding and how to advise clients on this often thorny issue.

Cindy Bilsborough’s article “Does Your Client Have the Capacity to Get Divorced?” explains the issues that can arise during a divorce when there are questions re-garding the client’s capacity to get a divorce or to enter into any agreements during the divorce proceedings, and the steps attorneys can take when these situations occur.

Christina Weed’s article “Is Your Client an Innocent Spouse?” addresses a crossover issue in tax law that can arise in divorce cases. The article “Frozen Embryos:

Correction to the March 2015 “Tax Law” edition:

“Same-Sex Marriage … Same Taxes?”

The question and answer referring to registered domestic partners was intended to be “unregistered domestic partners.”

Suzanne Boucher

inside

When Constitutional Law Trumps Family Law” discusses how the disposition of frozen embryos are nei-ther property nor a child, and triggers an analysis of the constitutional right to privacy in making a determina-tion in the dissolution action.

“Divorce and the Closely-held California Busi-ness Owner” addresses the questions that all business owners need to consider when a divorce is imminent.

In our spotlight article, Josanna Berkow, a retired family law commissioner from Contra Costa County provides an overview of the Children, Families and the Law Program at JFK University. Hopefully this program will get more law students and attorneys interested in the practice of family law. And in “Family Law and Your LRIS,” you can learn about the ways the LRIS can help both clients and attorneys in family law.

Carol Langford’s “Ethic’s Corner” column addresses the age-old questions: “What should a lawyer do when the client does not want to follow the lawyer’s advice?” and “What if the client insists on a course of conduct that the lawyer is convinced is not in the client’s best interests?” You can get the answers and take the MCLE self-study test to earn one hour of ethics credit.

Finally we have an added treat for readers in this is-sue—a short story by Justice James Marchiano (ret.) involving a fictional Judge Carlton family law story based on a real case with some embellishments.

The actual case was settled short of the resolution that appears in the story. Previous “Stories from the Bray Building” involving Judge Carlton have dealt with civil law, criminal law, conservatorship, legal ethics and jury trials, but family law was missing. I am glad that he could write a story that all of us animal lovers can relate to.

I hope this issue demonstrates how family law issues can arise in most practice areas and how we need to work together to address these complex legal issues. s

Suzanne N. Boucher, Esq., is a certified family spe-cialist. Her practice, located in Walnut Creek, focuses on complex family law matters in Contra Costa and Al-ameda counties.


Legal Drama

president’s message

Nick Casper CCCBA Board PresidentTelevision has had a long and

storied fascination with the law. Perhaps the torchbear-er of the courtroom drama

was “Perry Mason,” a noir-inspired adaptation of the literary charac-ter who, against impossible odds, was always able to prove his cli-ent wrongly accused through sheer lawyerly guile, often with the real murderer confessing on the stand.

This formula continued in the 1980s with “Matlock,” when Andy Griffith played the country lawyer who repeatedly secured acquittals with dramatic trial moments, often exposing a key inconsistency in the star prosecution witness’s story or establishing an airtight alibi that somehow had slipped through the cracks.

The list of legal shows is exten-sive—from the madcap and zany “Night Court” and “Ally McBeal,” to the countless iterations of the “Law & Order” cops and lawyers shows. Current shows such as “Damages” and “Suits” prove that TV’s love af-fair with the law is as strong and unwavering as ever.

Since the time I have been prac-ticing, I have managed to avoid the legal dramas because I can’t muster the necessary suspension of dis-belief to go along with the writers’ conceptions of how the law works.

I know too much; I would be an insufferable TV viewing partner. You can’t have a surprise witness without disclosing the individual in discovery! How did we just go from a preliminary hearing to a tri-al the following week?! There is no way that character evidence would ever be admitted!

Recently, this all changed for me with the debut season of “Better Call Saul.” My “gateway drug” into

the show was “Breaking Bad,” one of the most gripping, tense and in my opinion, flawless, shows ever to grace the small screen.

For those who are unfamiliar, “Better Call Saul” is the origin story of Jimmy McGill/Saul, a drifter-turned-small-time-lawyer in Albu-querque. Although the show is in its early stages, presumably the show’s arc will track the transformation of Jimmy from an earnest, struggling attorney to the unscrupulous drug lawyer Saul Goodman featured in “Breaking Bad.”

The show, like its “Breaking Bad” predecessor, is a testament to the storytelling prowess of creator Vince Gilligan, who is unrivaled in fleshing out complicated, flawed antiheros that you can’t help but root for.

But even this smart show has led me down the path of obnoxious, in-sider disbelief. In recent episodes, Jimmy scribbled a demand letter on toilet paper and served it on a retire-ment home committing fraud, and in the next scene, powerful lawyers representing the facility descend to negotiate a settlement. Huh?

And these same lawyers threaten Rule 11 sanctions if Jimmy does not drop the matter. Oh, really? Wouldn’t a lawsuit first need to be filed so that a court even has juris-diction to entertain such a motion?

Nitpicking aside, “Better Call Saul” has made me realize why audiences continue to be enamored with the legal world—the stories are funda-mentally about the search for truth, something that no other field is sin-gularly focused on finding.

The varied shows’ lack of fidel-ity to sound legal doctrine is beside the point—the shows are entertain-ing! And let’s be honest: If shows focused on the reality of the prac-tice of law, with lawyers slogging through 100 special interrogatories and taking 6-hour depositions, au-diences would be bored to tears.

Even the exciting moments of my practice, such as impeaching a trial witness with inconsistent deposi-tion testimony, wouldn’t exactly translate to dynamite television.

Our practices, although more mundane, are constantly filled with twists and turns, of unexpected shifts in which side has the upper hand. If television wants to amplify the drama by taking liberties, so be it. At least with “Better Call Saul,” I am on board. s

As an associate with Casper, Mead-ows, Schwartz & Cook since 2007, Nick Casper represents injured individuals in cases involving cat-astrophic injury, wrongful death, medical malpractice, employment discrimination/harassment and civil rights violations. Nick has been lead counsel in five civil jury trials.

MAY 20156

Premarital Agreement Season

Is Here: Give Your Approach

a Tune-up

H ere in California, weddings occur year-round, but June through September is Wedding Sea-son. That means the premarital agreement season is starting now.

For those of you with a premarital agreement practice, the first thing you should do to prep is read California’s Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (UPAA)(Family Code sections 1600-1617). Next, read the recent cases: Marriage of Melissa (2012) 212 CA4th 598; Marriage of Facter (2013) 212 CA4th 967; Marriage of Cadwell-Faso v. Faso (2011) 191 CA4th 945; and Marriage of Hill & Dit-tmer (2011) 202 CA4th 1046.

This article highlights three areas to consider with your premarital agreement clients.

Know Who Your Client Is and What the

Premarital Agreement Is Intended to

Accomplish For Him or Her

Clients generally fall into one of three buckets:

(1) The young client whose family is requesting a pre-marital agreement to protect family assets/wealth.

(2) The second bucket has three subsets:

(a) The client who has been divorced before.

(b) The client who has earned through his or her ef-forts a separate estate before the upcoming nup-tials.

(c) The client is engaged in business/income pro-ducing endeavors that have not all come to frui-tion yet.

(3) The client in the latter life stages, nearing or in re-tirement, with adult children, whose expectancy in-terests want for protection.

Sometimes a client can straddle two buckets. Whatev-er the case, within the first few minutes of meeting, de-termine where to place your client. This will allow you to direct the interview to understand what is driving the premarital agreement.

In the case of buckets 1 and 3, make sure the client owns the premarital agreement. Sometimes these peo-ple want their parents, financial advisors or children to take care of it. This client often does not want to have sensitive discussions with their betrothed. Client man-agement here can be delicate.

Explain the Premarital Agreement that

California Will Provide in the Absence

of One Customized by the Parties

This is a crucial discussion to have with the client. At times, the issue arises with a client from the first bucket: He calls begrudgingly because his parents insist upon a premarital agreement, but he does not want one and says it is causing problems between himself and his fi-ancée.

It is beneficial to explain to him that California law will provide him with a premarital agreement regard-less. This is their chance to create what they want. This type of client will usually buy in to the process with this explanation.

It is worthwhile to discuss with all clients how com-munity property is created during marriage, how sepa-rate property is maintained during marriage, and the factors by which spousal support are determined in the event of dissolution. It is necessary also to determine whether a customized premarital agreement is appro-priate.

by Anne Freeman


This is important to keep in mind in the midst of premarital agree-ment negotiations as well. When a client, who wants to keep his or her separate property separate, is asked in return to include terms far more beneficial to the other spouse than California law would provide, be sure to revisit the purpose of the premarital agreement for your cli-ent, and recall what the law would provide in the absence of the agree-ment.

If you do premarital agreements, you have no doubt come across the one-sided agreement that keeps and creates everything during the mar-riage as either side’s separate prop-erty. The tactic here appears to be: Come out strong, then give and con-cede on a few things so as to look reasonable and cooperative, and create a paper trail that the agree-ment was negotiated.

To the client wanting to send over this kind of agreement, or one who receives this as a first draft, what kind of tone and precedent does this set for a marriage?

A better practice is to frame a cli-ent’s wants and needs in relation to California law, then customize. Create a list of items/issues that the client is willing to give his or her spouse in the premarital agreement that the law would not otherwise provide, in exchange for the pro-tections he or she is seeking in the agreement.

In this manner you are assisting your client vis-à-vis the dreaded “unconscionability” arguments as well.

The Premarital Agreement

Process Is as Important as

the Agreement Itself

Divorce attorneys need to remem-ber that they are dealing with peo-ple getting married. The client has often left the premarital agreement to one or two months before the wedding, and just wants to check it off his or her list.

However, there are steps that can-not be skimped on. A practical rule

of thumb is to not take on premari-tal agreement representation less than a month before the wedding. Period. Even with one month’s time or more, ensure that your client will be available, responsive and will provide his or her financial infor-mation immediately.

Disclosures are paramount. This means provide everything you can. If your client’s finances or business interests require it, enter into a con-fidentiality agreement confirming that only the other party, and his or her attorney can view the disclo-sures.

Ideally, before the premarital agreement is drafted, provide cop-ies of personal and corporate tax returns for the past two years to the other attorney. Some clients provide a two- to three-page narra-tive accompanying tax returns to explain the manner in which he or she earns and/or receives income.

Whenever possible, provide a one- or two-page financial state-ment with estimated values of all

MAY 20158

Tune-up,

cont. from page 7

assets and debts of your client; this will eventually form the exhibit to the premarital agreement listing his or her separate property.

It is a good idea to obtain a signed receipt from the other party, acknowledging that he or she has received these disclosures, which includes a statement like, “I ac-knowledge that I have been given the opportunity to examine, upon my request, any supporting documen-tation relating to any asset, debt or obligation set forth herein.”

Disclose, disclose, disclose. Take extra precautions, provide documentation and offer the opportunity to re-view more. Watch for any language drafted or requested that appears to suggest that disclosure was not “fair, rea-sonable and full.” This goes to the heart of whether the agreement was unconscionable when it was executed, per Family Code 1615.

There are also a myriad of issues central to premarital agreements, e.g., spousal support waivers or limitations, attorney certifications, Cadwell–Faso v. Faso and the so-called seven-day rule, to name a few.

Look not only to the rules governing premarital agree-ments, but the reasons behind the rules as well. If you

Will & Trust LitigationSecurities Litigation

Elder Abuse Litigation

B A R R & Y O U N GATTORNEYS

318-C Diablo Road • Danville, CA 94526-3443(925) 314-9999

www.BarrYoungLaw.com

take the time to address the reasons behind the rules in your representation of premarital agreement clients, you may lose less sleep over “crystal-balling” what ex-actly “unconscionability” and “unconscionable at the time of enforcement” will mean. s

Anne Freeman is a Senior Associate Attorney at Side-man & Bancroft, LLP, in San Francisco. Freeman prac-tices family law exclusively, specializing in premarital agreements, postmarital agreements and dissolution actions involving complicated valuation and finan-cial matters and complex community property and support issues. She is on the Board of Directors of the CCCBA Family Law Section. http://www.sideman.com/lawyers/detail/biography/81/Anne-Freeman

Leading Estate Planning Law Firm desires to purchase Estate Planning and Elder Law practices of retiring Contra Costa area attorneys. If you are interested, please contact Reed Scott at (925) 225-1025 for more information.

ESTATE PLANNER: WANT TO RETIRE?


Does Your Client Have the

CAPACITY to Get Divorced?

by Cindy Frazier Bilsborough

F amily law practitioners have lately been seeing more clients come to their office with emotional, cognitive

and mental health issues due to age, injury or disease. In many instanc-es, this involves the disintegration of a second marriage later in life, or is spurred on by disability beyond the caretaking capacity of the other partner.

The question then arises how to address these issues, while uphold-ing the attorney’s ethical duties of confidentiality,1 and avoiding in-terests adverse to the client,2 partic-ularly where the client disputes his or her lack of capacity.

There is a rebuttable presumption that all persons have the capacity to make decisions and be respon-sible for their acts or decisions.3 Moreover, courts have consistently held that there is a low evidentiary threshold in determining whether a party has the capacity to get di-vorced.4 Obviously, the same rules applied when they got married!

Even though a client may qualify and have the “legal capacity” to file for divorce, that same client may not have the capacity to enter into any agreements as part of the dis-solution action, such as for the divi-sion of property, custody of children and support.

The client must be able to under-stand and communicate his or her

The Interplay Between Family Law and Probaterights, duties and responsibilities as set forth in the contract, a signifi-cantly higher burden than simply the decision to divorce.5

The family law attorney faced with a client whose competency is in question can turn to the factors set forth in Probate Code §811 as a starting point. A client’s deficiency in any one of those listed areas re-quires that the attorney take sec-ondary steps to determine the cli-ent’s capacity before proceeding.

Oftentimes, the attorney can discuss these concerns directly with the client or the client’s fam-ily members or request a release to meet with the physician or mental health professional. The attorney could further suggest that the client submit to a mental health assess-ment as a condition for the attor-ney representing the client.

In many instances, the client is aware of his or her decreasing capabili-ties and welcomes the intervention of a third party to as-sist. Depending

upon the extent of the incapacity, a consult with a conservatorship at-torney may be appropriate.

Conservatorships can be of the person, estate or both, and involve a costly and extensive process as set forth in Probate Code §1800 et seq. Ordinarily, such a process is war-

ranted only in the event of sig-nificant and permanent in-

capacity.

A conservator would be appointed and given

authority to proceed in the family law case. Once the con-

servator is appointed, he or she would then apply to the court to

be appointed as the guardian ad li-tem for the party.

It is possible to have a person ap-ply for appointment as the guard-ian ad litem in the family law ac-tion without being a conservator. Any person, including a relative, adult child, friend or professional fi-duciary may apply to be the guard-ian ad litem.

The guardian ad litem, once ap-proved by the court, would step into the shoes of the divorcing party and

MAY 201510

Personal InjuryReal Estate Litigation

Trust and Estate DisputesMediation

Law Offices ofCandice E. Stoddard

1350 Treat Blvd., Suite 420 Walnut Creek, CA 94597

925.942.5100 • fax [email protected]

Practicing law in the East Bay for over 25 years

n

Candice E. Stoddard— WANTED —Will/Estate Contests

ConservatorshipsYou handle the estate, we do the contest. Cases, except conservatorships, often handled on a contingent fee basis, but can be hourly. Referral fee where appropriate.

Pedder, Hesseltine, Walker & Toth, LLP

oldest partnership in Contra Costa County(since 1955)

p 925.283-6816 • f 925.283-36833445 Golden Gate Way

Lafayette, CA 94549AV Martindale-Hubbell

be able to make necessary decisions instead of the client. The process involves the filing of a Request for Order with the court for their appointment, setting forth the grounds to establish incapacity.6

Where the client has the ability to consent to the ap-pointment of a guardian ad litem, the family law attor-ney could represent the guardian ad litem in the appli-cation to the court.

The ethical question arises when the client either objects to the appointment of a guardian ad litem or is completely incapable of consenting to the attorney’s representation of the guardian ad litem. The second in-stance could occur when, during the dissolution action, the party has an accident or serious illness which ren-ders them incapacitated.

In those instances, it may be unethical for the attor-ney to represent an interest potentially adverse to the client and apply to the court for appointment of a guard-ian ad litem.

The Judicial Council has submitted a proposed Rule of Professional Responsibility Rule 1.14,7 which addresses the instance when an attorney has a reasonable belief of a client’s diminished capacity where there is the inabil-ity to obtain consent, allowing the attorney to notify a third party of the risk.

In most instances, the opposing party is aware of the potential incapacity. The other party has the right to file a request for appointment of a guardian ad litem, as may the court, sua sponte. In the event of a third-party re-quest for appointment, the attorney may need to with-draw as counsel, due to the conflict of interest, allowing alternate counsel to represent the guardian ad litem.

Capacity to Get Divorced,

cont. from page 9

These situations present themselves with some fre-quency, so it is the attorney’s responsibility to be on guard about issues of incapacity. s

Cindy Frazier Bilsborough is a Certified Family Law Specialist. She has practiced family law in Walnut Creek for 33 years and specializes in complex dissolu-tion issues. She has lectured on family law issues for the county and state bar associations.

1 Rule 3-100.

2 Rule 3-310.

3 Probate Code §810.

4 Marriage of Greenway (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 628; Marriage of Straczynski (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 531.

5 Probate Code §812.

6 CCP §372 and 373(c).

7 Proposed Rule 1.14. Client with Diminished Capacity: (a) When a client’s capacity to make adequately consid-ered decisions in connection with a representation is di-minished, whether because of mental impairment or some other reason, the lawyer shall, as far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal lawyer-client relationship with the client. (b) Except where the lawyer represents a minor, a client in a crimi-nal matter, or a person who is the subject of a conservatorship pro-ceeding, when the lawyer reasonably believes: (1) that the client has significantly diminished capacity such that the client is un-able to make adequately considered decisions in connection with a representation and further that, as a result of such significantly diminished capacity; (2) the client is at risk of substantial physical, financial or other harm unless action is taken; and (3) the client cannot adequately act in his or her own interest, the lawyer may, but is not required to, notify an individual or organization that has the ability to take action to protect the client.


Is Your Client an

Y ou suspect your client’s spouse is not paying her or his taxes, filing erroneous returns, or worse—intentionally evading

taxes. Is your client innocent? Maybe not, but perhaps she or he is an “innocent spouse.”

Liability for Income Taxes

Generally, spouses are jointly and sev-erally liable for income taxes due on a jointly filed income tax return.

A common situation that occurs is one in which a married spouse,1 your client, is a stay-at-home parent. Your client may

have been able to access money for household expenses; but she or he was earning little or no income.

Your client’s spouse had one or more separate bank accounts, and your client had no knowledge that income was underreported or that taxes were not being paid. Perhaps your client was in an abusive rela-tionship. These are all factors to keep in mind when there are outstand-ing tax liabilities in connection with a joint income tax return.

Valid Joint Income Tax Return

As a first point of clarification, there must be a valid joint income tax return in any determination that a taxpayer is jointly and severally liable for a tax liability. This is also a requirement to be eligible for a grant of relief pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) §6015.2

If there is not a valid joint return because a signature was forged, the return was signed under duress, or there was never a valid marriage, there is no joint and several liability and no standing to request relief under IRC §6015.

If your client was in an abusive marriage, she or he may have signed a return under duress, rendering the return invalid. To show duress, your client must prove that “consent was coerced; that is, was the per-son complaining ‘induced by the duress or undue influence to give his consent, and would not have done so otherwise.’”3

If there are facts present to substantiate duress, a practitioner may be tempted to assert there is not a valid joint return, forego a claim for relief under IRC §6015, and hopefully save the client’s resources.

But, consider if the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agrees the return was signed under duress, the IRS could also determine your client is required to file a separate return because she or he had earnings during the time in question. In a community property state, such as Califor-

by Christina Weed

Innocent Spouse?

MAY 201512

nia, your client will be required to report one-half of her or his gross income and one-half of the separate income of her or his spouse.

This could result in a separate tax liability dispropor-tionately greater than what would otherwise be attrib-utable to your client’s separate earnings if she or he was not married and living in a community property state. Your client is not likely to be able to pay the resulting tax liability.

Innocent Spouse Relief

Another option exists if your client qualifies for inno-cent spouse relief under IRC §§6015(b), (c) or (f).4

Relief under §6015(b) requires an understatement or deficiency attributable to the non-requesting spouse; the requesting spouse did not know, or did not have rea-son to know of the understatement when the return was signed; it is inequitable to hold the requesting spouse jointly and severally liable under the circumstances; and the request is made within two years of the first col-lection activity by the IRS after July 22, 1998.5

The most important argument to make with respect to this provision is whether it would be inequitable to hold the requesting spouse liable.6 Ask your client how involved they were in household finances; whether there were any health or family issues during the rele-vant time period that would have prevented them from knowing whether their income taxes were understated on their return.

If there are facts favorable to this claim for relief, and you are able to obtain affidavits from the client or wit-nesses who know the client well or know they were subject to abuse during their marriage, do so.

IRC §6015(c) provides proportionate relief for taxpay-ers who are not married to, or are legally separated from, their spouse/former spouse during the past 12 months; their request is timely; and the portion of the deficiency is allocable to the non-requesting spouse.7 There are ad-ditional factors that prevent an otherwise qualifying spouse from obtaining relief.8

In order to determine the portion of a total deficiency allocated to the electing spouse, use the following for-mula:9

Items attributable to your client divided by all items used to compute the deficiency, multiplied by total deficiency equals the total deficiency allocated to your client.10

IRC §6015(f) provides for equi-table relief. There are threshold re-quirements, including that relief under the other subsections is not available. In addition, assets must not have been transferred between the spouses as part of a fraudulent scheme; the requesting spouse must not have received disqualified as-sets; the requesting spouse must not have filed, or failed to file, with fraudulent intent; and the liability must be attributable to an item of the non-requesting spouse.

If these threshold requirements are met, but a streamlined determi-nation11 cannot be made to grant relief, there is a list of additional fac-tors12 the IRS will also consider in its decision.

Divorce Decree

One of the factors that may be considered by the IRS in connection with a request for relief pursuant to IRC §6015 is whether the non-re-questing spouse had a legal obliga-tion to pay. This does not require a

Innocent Spouse,

cont. from page 11

“A unique and effective style - a great mediator”

Candice Stoddard

Willows Office Park p 1355 Willow Way, Suite 110Concord, California 94520

Telephone (925) 798-3413 p Facsimile (925) 798-3118 Email [email protected]

AND MEDIATION CENTER

Ron Mullin


divorce decree, but if such a decree exists, and it provides that the non-requesting spouse is responsible for all or most of the deficiency, you should provide this to the IRS.

For federal purposes, a divorce decree that indicates one spouse has responsibility for taxes jointly owed, while it may be considered by the IRS,13 is not control-ling.

California, which has a somewhat similar innocent joint filer program, is bound by a divorce decree.14 Cali-fornia permits divorcing spouses to contractually allo-cate an unpaid joint and several liability in a marital dissolution. If all statutory criteria are met, the couple’s agreement is binding on the Franchise Tax Board.15

Other Matters to Consider

Once the request for innocent spouse relief is submit-ted, the non-requesting spouse will be contacted by the IRS. All of the information provided to the IRS will be shared with the non-requesting spouse. You may, how-ever, ask the IRS to omit information regarding your cli-ent’s location.16

The non-requesting spouse will have an opportunity to object to relief for your client, and will be given an opportunity to participate. The non-requesting spouse may also intervene if the matter goes to Tax Court. The non-requesting spouse may not, however, appeal a de-termination of the Tax Court to grant your client relief.17

In addition, note that there are some relief provisions from community property income splitting require-ments for a requesting spouse in a community property state.18

IRC §6015 and its associated procedures are complex and this article only touches on some the issues that may arise. The relief provisions under IRC §6015 can serve as a powerful tool for clients who qualify. It is im-portant for practitioners to be able to identify when a cli-ent’s facts and circumstances may give rise to a request for innocent spouse relief. s

Christina Weed, JD, LL.M., is an attorney at the Law Offices of Chastity A. Schults in Walnut Creek, a tax law and estate planning firm. Christina’s practice has an emphasis in Tax Law, Business Succession Planning and litigation. Christina is the Chair of the Tax Section of the Contra Costa County Bar Association and the Co-chair of the Contra Costa County Delegation of the Cali-fornia Conference of Bar Associations. You can reach her at [email protected] or (925) 274-4608.

1 Same-sex married couples qualify for relief if legally married in the jurisdiction where the marriage was performed and meet all other requirements for relief pursuant to IRC §6015. Rev. Rul. 2013-17.

2 IRC §6013(a); See Raymond v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 191 (2002).

3 Stanley v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 555, 562 (1966); See also Furnish v. Commissioner, 262 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1958).

4 A request for innocent spouse relief is made on a properly com-pleted Form 8857 and submitted to the IRS.

5 See IRM 25.15.3.6; Tax Court Rule 142(a); Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 206, 311 (2002), aff’d, 101 Fed. Appx. 34 (6th Cir. 2004).

6 IRC §6015(b)(1)(D), See Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106 (T.C. 2002).

7 Reg. §1.6015-3.

8 These limits include: The IRS proves the joint filers transferred assets between themselves as part of a fraudulent scheme; the election relates to an underpayment rather than a deficiency or understatement; the requesting spouse had actual knowledge at the time she or he signed the return of any item giving rise to that portion of the deficiency; or the electing spouse received disquali-fied assets. IRC §6015(c)(4).

9 Please note that the election is available to either or both spouses with respect to different items on the same tax return. A spouse who does not make an election remains jointly and severally li-able for the entire tax.

10 IRC §6015(d).

11 See IRC §§66(c), 6015(f).

12 See Rev. Proc. 2013-34. Please note that effective July 25, 2011, the IRS announced a policy change under which a spouse requesting equitable relief under IRC §6015(f) no longer must request such relief within the two-year deadline under Treas. Reg. §1.6015-5(b)(1). See Notice 2011-70, 2011-32 I.R.B. This makes equitable relief under IRC §6015 a possibility for many who previously were not able to obtain relief under the old provisions.

13 See Rev. Proc. 2003-61.

14 The Franchise Tax Board has an innocent joint filer relief pro-gram. Relief is requested on Form FTB 705.

15 California Revenue and Taxation Code §19006.

16 This may be especially relevant in cases where your client was subject to abuse during marriage.

17 Baranowicz v. Commissioner, 432 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2005); Estate of Ravetti v. United States, 37 F.3d 1393, 1394 (9th Cir. 1994).

18 This is outside the scope of this article, but see IRC §66 grants spouses relief from community property income splitting require-ments in some circumstances, and the IRS may even require the non-electing spouse to report 100 percent of the community property income. This could result in a refund to your client in some cases. IRM 25.18.3.2; See S. Rep. No. 96-1036 at 8 (1980); IRM 25.18.3.13; IRC §66(b); Please note only the IRS may invoke IRC §66(b); the taxpayer cannot invoke the application of this subsec-tion. Hardy v. Commissioner, 181 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 1999); Drum-mer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-214, aff’d without pub-lished opinion, 68 F.3d 472 (5th Cir. 1995).

MAY 201514

Frozen Embryos: When Constitutional Law Trumps Family Law (Frozen Series, Part 2)

I n the “Women in Law” edition (February 2015) of the Contra Costa Lawyer, our “Frozen Se-ries Part 1” article discussed the

recent movement among Silicon Valley companies to bolster their ar-senal of perks for female workers, to include everything from giving em-ployees $4,000 in “baby cash” to use however they choose (Facebook), to paying for fertility treatments up to $20,000 (Apple).

As a result of these perks, more couples may opt to postpone be-coming parents to focus on their careers. They can freeze their eggs or embryos1 in hopes of increas-ing their odds that they can still become parents in the future by fertilizing the eggs or implanting the embryos.

However, these decisions can have long-term effects, not only on the person’s career, but also their marriage and ultimately their ability to become a parent if they divorce. Agreements that are made when the parties are hap-pily married can become a prob-lem when the relationship breaks down.

When a couple decides to divorce, they will have to address the ques-tion of what happens to the frozen eggs or embryos. A woman who has frozen her eggs may ask the hus-band to pay for the cost associated with storing the eggs if they no lon-ger have the employer perks.

Another situation that may arise with respect to frozen embryos is that one spouse may decide that he or she no longer wants to be a parent

and objects to the other spouse im-planting the embryo after divorce.

It may surprise many people to find out that this is not a “custody” issue or even a “property” issue. In-stead, the disposition of the embryo focuses on the individual’s constitu-tional right to privacy and mirrors the women’s right to choose, often discussed in abortion cases.2

Although there are no published cases in California, other states have tackled this issue. This article will discuss how to address the issues that arise in situations relating to

frozen embryos so that we, as family law practitioners, will be in a better position to advise our clients on this difficult and emotionally charged issue.

Davis v. Davis (1992) 842 S.W.2d 588, 597, was the first decision to ad-dress the status of frozen embryos in a marital dissolution action. The parties in Davis froze the embryos during marriage but divorced be-fore the embryos were implanted. The wife wanted to donate the em-bryos to a childless couple, but the

husband did not want to have an-other child and wanted the embry-os destroyed.

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that frozen embryos are nei-ther property nor a child, but an “in-terim category that entitled them to special respect because of their po-tential for human life.”

The court held that the first re-source for determining the fate of the embryos was to focus on a writ-ten agreement between the parties. The written agreement could be either between the spouses or be-

tween the spouses and the fertil-ity clinic, which would include a provision for disposition of the frozen embryos in the event of a death or divorce.

As the parties in Davis did not have a written agreement, the court was forced to make a choice between the desire to donate the embryos and the desire not to have the embryo develop into a child.

The answer was based on the constitutional right to privacy.

That right includes protections against undue state influence in the right to have children.3 The court in Davis held that “the right of procre-ational autonomy is composed of two rights of equal significance—the right to procreate and the right to avoid procreation.”4

The court ruled in favor of Mr. Davis and his right not to have chil-dren. If Mrs. Davis were allowed to donate the embryos, Mr. Davis would face a lifetime of either won-dering about his parental status or

by Suzanne Boucher


knowing about his parental status, but having no control over it.

One wonders whether the result may have been different if Mrs. Da-vis wanted to keep the embryo as opposed to donating it to another couple.

The court in New York was faced with that dilemma in Kass v. Kass (1998) 91 N.Y. 2d 554, 673 N.Y.S.2d 350, which involved a wife who wanted the embryos implanted in her own uterus and the husband who did not want to become a par-ent.

The parties in Kass had a writ-ten agreement including a consent form with the clinic, which provid-ed that “our frozen pre-zygotes will not be released from storage for any purpose without the consent of both of us … in the event of a divorce the legal ownership of any stored pre-zygotes must be determined in a property settlement and will be re-leased as directed by order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”5

Having agreed to divorce, the parties later signed another agree-ment that stated “the disposition of the pre-zygotes shall be disposed of in the manner outlined in our con-sent form and neither party will lay claim to custody of the pre-zygotes.”

The court agreed with the court in Davis and held that the agreement between the parties would con-trol. The court then interpreted the agreement to state that since joint consent was required for release of the embryos, it was the parties’ in-tent that the embryos would not be released absent joint consent.

The court went on to find that, conversely, it was not the parties’ intent to permit the court to allow implantation against the wishes of either party, and the request for im-plantation by Mrs. Kass was denied.

The passage of time between when the agreement/consent form is signed and the divorce is a fac-tor that was discussed in A.Z. v. B.Z. (2000) 431 Mass. 150 725 N.E.2d 1051.

In this case, there was a successful implantation in 1992 that resulted in twin daughters. At issue was the disposition of the four remaining embryos four years later when the parties divorced.

The wife wanted to enforce the consent form that released the em-bryos to the wife if the parties sepa-rated. The husband objected to the enforcement of the agreement, cit-ing a change of circumstances since the time the form was signed.

The court found that many terms in the consent form were vague and held that it would not enforce an agreement that would compel one donor to become a parent against his or her will, and denied the re-quest for implantation.

It is interesting to note that all of these cases reached the same out-come, that the constitutional right to privacy grants either parent an absolute right to prevent implanta-tion of a frozen embryo.

In fact, the right not to become a parent seems to trump the other parent’s right to have a child. This right will be upheld even if there is an agreement which on its face may seem to favor a ruling in support of implantation. s

Suzanne N. Boucher, Esq., is a certified family specialist. Her practice, located in Walnut Creek, focuses on complex family law matters in Contra Costa and Alam-eda counties.

1 Frozen embryos are those embryos that are not transferred during in vitro fertiliza-tion cycles and are subsequently cryopre-served.

2 Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) 492 U.S. 490; Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113.

3 See Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Eisenstat v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1992).

4 842 S.W.2d at 600.

5 673 N.Y S.2d at 352.

MAY 201516

by Erin D. Hollis

F or married business owners in California, the business may be the most valuable and illiquid asset in the marital estate. Therefore, it is reason-able to assume that if owners divorce, the busi-

ness will be an asset that will spark substantial contro-versy between the parties.

Furthermore, without preparation and precaution, the consequences of divorce can have a devastating financial impact on a business. If either your client or your client’s business partners are anticipating divorce, you should consider these three questions:

(1) How will the divorce affect the business?

(2) What is to be valued?

(3) Who should perform the business valuation?

How Will the Divorce Affect the Business?

Aside from the obvious emotional impact a divorce may have on your client, the financial implications on your client’s business can be overwhelming. As men-tioned, the business may be the largest asset in the mari-tal estate as well as the most illiquid.

However, funding the marital settlement can place a financial burden on your business if you do not have sufficient personal liquidity. Supporting the settlement without interrupting business operations typically re-quires sufficient cash on hand, readily available liquid assets, or another type of funding vehicle such as a busi-ness loan.

There are some common mistakes an owner who is facing divorce may make in this regard:

• Running personal or non-business-related expenses through the business.

Divorce and the Closely-held

California Business Owner

• Blatantly neglecting operations.

• Selling off or destroying business-owned assets.

• Dramatically depleting profits or cash on hand.

• Ceasing operations.

These tactics may have zero to little effect on the busi-ness’s value, and it is recommended that owners avoid extraordinary actions or business decisions outside the company’s day-to-day operations. There are a few rea-sons for that.

First, the court and opposing counsel will be savvy enough to recognize self-inflicted sabotage. Second, the court will typically specify a valuation date, which could be the date of separation or another specified date. Last and most important, anomalies and extraordinary events may be “normalized” to reflect the normal course of business.

Essentially, notwithstanding the moves made by the owner, an experienced appraiser can bring sanity to di-vorce business valuation situations.

What Is to Be Valued?

Level of Ownership

The amount (or percentage) of ownership to be valued will guide an appraiser in the valuation analysis and application of the appropriate methodology. Typically, a 51 percent or more business ownership represents a controlling interest and is worth more than a minority interest, and a valuation discount for minority owner-ship may apply.

However, if the ownership of the company is 50–50 between co-owner spouses, a non-controlling premise may not apply.

Entity Structure and Taxation

The entity structure of the company is also relevant. A hotly contested topic in business valuation is the tax af-fecting advantages and disadvantages of C corporations versus those of pass-through entities, such as S corpora-tions and limited liability companies, or LLCs.


Although there are different schools of thought on the issue, the taxation of business earnings is controversial because it may make a material difference in the value of your client’s ownership interest.

State Case Law

Your appraiser should be familiar with the relevant state case law. Each state has its own standard of value to be applied in marital dissolution cases.

California courts lean toward “fair market value,” or the price, expressed in terms of cash equivalents, at which property would change hands between hypo-thetical willing and able buyer and seller, acting at arm’s length in an open and unrestricted market, when neither is under compulsion to buy or sell and when both have reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts.1

Personal goodwill is also an area of concern, as Cali-fornia law typically includes it in the marital estate. This implies a deviation from the standard of fair market value because personal goodwill is attributable to an in-dividual (relationships, skills, reputation, etc.) and is not transferable. Enterprise goodwill is the goodwill of the business and is a transferable asset.

Who Should Perform the Business Valuation?

If the business is to be included in the dissolution, it is recommended you have a business valuation per-formed by an appraiser who is:

• Independent: An attorney is an ad-vocate of the client, whereas an ap-praiser is only an advocate of the business’ value. Therefore, having your client’s CPA, or other individ-ual they already have an existing personal or professional relation-ship with, perform the business val-uation is ill advised. Opposing legal counsel can easily dispute the cred-ibility and objectivity of the busi-ness valuation report. Any appraiser with such an existing relationship and who knowingly accepts such an assignment is bordering on a vio-lation of professional ethics.

• Certified: He or she should be cer-tified by a recognized professional business valuation organization. Many courts have disallowed val-uations performed by uncertified individuals.

• Experienced: It’s not enough to hire an independent, certified ap-praiser. You also must hire one who has substantial valuation ex-perience in the pertinent industry.

Experience is critical as your appraiser may have to defend her or his opinion on the witness stand.

Be Prepared

Although it may seem pessimistic to suggest planning for divorce, the consequences of not doing so can have a devastating financial impact on your client’s business. Regular business valuations allow you to proactively care for the viability of your client’s business invest-ment and therefore anticipate an untimely event re-quiring immediate liquidity.

A business owner who is contemplating marital dis-solution should always seek, with their legal counsel, advice to determine the scope of the valuation engage-ment and the necessary course of action. s

Erin Durand Hollis, ASA, is on the American Soci-ety of Appraisers Business Valuation Committee. The American Society of Appraisers is an international or-ganization devoted to the appraisal profession. ASA is the oldest and only major appraisal organization des-ignating members in all appraisal specialties. Hollis is with Marshall & Stevens, Incorporated, in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected].

1 As defined by the International Glossary of Business Valuation Terms, as adopted by American Society of Appraisers.

lenczowski law - cccba advertisement (09-22-2014).doc

MERGERS, ACQUISITIONS, SALES AND PLANNING FOR BUSINESS OWNERS

BUSINESS LAW

1615 Bonanza Street, Suite 212Walnut Creek, CA 94596

T (925) 280 7788www.lenczowskilaw.com

HUBERT LENCZOWSKI, J.D., M.A.*[email protected]

* Adjunct Professor Taxation Golden Gate University Law School, LL.M. Taxation Program

CCCBA MeMBer SinCe 1977 www.davidbpastor.com

1280 Boulevard Way, Suite 212 • Walnut Creek, CA 94595 925-932-3346 • [email protected]

Law Offices of DAviD B. PAStor

David B. Pastor

ConServAtorShiPSProBAteS

CriMinAl DefenSe• Free Consultation •

MAY 201518

Commercial and Banking Mediation

Call or email to make arrangements for

your mediation at our Walnut Creek office.

Dean ChristophersonDawe & Christopherson LLpTelephone - (925) 256-6677 Email - [email protected]

A reasonably priced alternative to big ADR

groups, Dean Christopherson brings a thirty

year track record of resolving contractual,

business and banking disputes to your

mediation table. Special rates may be available for parties with difficulty fundinga traditional mediation.

Tax & Estate Planning AttorneysIndividual & Business Tax Issues

Tax Preparation • Tax Planning • Tax Controversy

Sophisticated Estate Planning • Estate Administration Trust & Estate Litigation • Probate

1981 N. Broadway, Suite 300 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 930-6000 | Youngman.com

Walter C. Youngman, Jr., Attorney-CPA Jean Claude B. Mallein, Jr., MBA, LL.M-Taxation State Bar Certified Specialist-Estate Planning, Trust & Probate Tara H. Shine, Attorney

YOUNGMAN & ERICSSON

Dani Altes, Paralegal Lisa Salvetti, Legal Secretary

Maudie Sullivan, Certified Tax Preparer


LAW PRACTICE MANAGEMENT SERIES 20153rd Wednesday of Each Month | 4:30 pm - 6 pm

JFK University | 100 Ellinwood Way, Room S209 | Pleasant Hill

DATE TITLE DESCRIPTION MCLE CREDITApril 15

Contact Liz Galliett for a recorded version.

Nuts and Bolts of Starting a Law FirmRefreshments and net-working social sponsored by Laptop Lounge, Home of Reliable Receptionist and Mercer Health & Ben-efits Insurance Services, LLC

Before billing the first hour, every law firm needs an engagement letter, an insurance policy and a billing system. Learn from those with experience starting and maintaining law practices how to develop the tools that will situate you to go into business on your own or as part of a partnership or law corporation. Speakers: Aaron Feldman, Founder, Feldman Law Group Denae Budde, Partner, Alborg Martin & Budde LLP

1.5 hrs. General MCLE credit

May 204:30-6 pm

Look Before You Leap in Changing Law Firms

This program will address in general terms the ethical and practical considerations surrounding the departure of partners and associates from a law firm.

Speakers: Richard Frankel, Esq., Frankel Goldware Ferber LLP Roger J. Brothers, Esq., Buchman Provine Brothers Smith LLP

1 hr. Ethics / 0.5 hrs. General MCLE credit

June 174:30-6 pm

Everyone’s Doing It: The Explicit Effect of Implicit Bias

This program is split into two parts: In Part I, Marina Sarmiento Feehan will discuss Implicit Bias; in Part II, Megan Roth will talk about the importance of CRM (Client Relationship Management).

Speakers: Marina Sarmiento Feehan, Esq., Founder, Positive Counsel Megan Roth, Marketing Manager, Insightly

1 hr. Elimination of Bias MCLE credit

July 154:30-6 pm

Room S304

Ethics In Co-counsel and Contract Attorney Arrangements

Learn about important ethical issues to be aware of in co- counsel and contract attorney arrangements.

Speakers: Jerome Fishkin, Professional Liability Attorney, Fishkin & Slatter Katy Young, Partner, Ad Astra Law Group Joan Presky, Presky Legal, PC

1.5 hrs. Ethics MCLE credit

Sept. 164:30-6 pm

Cybersecurity: What You Need to Know

This program will discuss cybersecurity and what you should know to protect yourself and your firm.

Speaker: Mike Murray, Veritext


Oct. 214:30-6 pm

This is Not Your Parents’ Law Firm

A panel discussion on various models of managing a law firm, including potential alternative models and how they work in prac-tice in comparison to traditional models of managing a law firm.

Speakers: Marie Barnes, Associate, Ad Astra Law Group Harry Stern, Partner - Rains Lucia Stern, PC Renee Livingston, Livingston Law Firm


Cost per session: $20 for CCCBA members | $30 for Non-Members | $10 for Law Students

Discount for signing up for the entire series! Early registration is encouraged.

Please contact Liz Galliett: [email protected] | (925) 370-2540

MAY 201520

Welcome Celebration for

Theresa Hurley

April 2, 2015

Audrey Gee, Theresa Hurley and Nick Casper

Matt Guichard, Mike Brown, Philip Andersen and Ben Borson

Lubna Jahangiri, Nancy Powers and Ken Strongman

For more photos, visit our Facebook page at

facebook.com/CCCBA!

Beth Mora, Suzette Torres and Gina Boer


RES IPSA JOKUITOR

XX

THE JOKE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF

KICKOFF FOR FOOD FROM THE BAR 2015Benefitting the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano

When: Thursday, May 7, 2015 Doors open at 6 pm Show starts at 8 pm

Where: Back Forty BBQ 100 Coggins Drive Pleasant Hill

Tickets: $60

BBQ Buffet: 6:30 - 7:30 pmVegetarian option available upon request, contact Renee by April 30 at (925) 771-1310.

Bring a can of protein (tuna, beef stew, chicken, etc.) to enter a drawing for valuable prizes!

Thanks to our Generous Sponsors!*

BENEFACTORWells Fargo

PATRONSArcher Norris

McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges & Ambacher

Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPThe Recorder

Steele George Schofield & Ramos, LLP

U.S. Legal Support

CONTRIBUTORSBrown, Church & Gee, LLP

Buchman Provine Brothers Smith, LLPCertified Reporting Services

EsquireFrankel Goldware Ferber, LLP

Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, Koss, Markowitz & RainesMiller Starr Regalia

Quivx Scott Valley Bank

Vasquez Benisek & Lindgren, LLP

Bring your checkbook for a chance to win one of our valuable raffle items!

GET YOUR TICKETS TODAY!For tickets, scan the QR code or contact Theresa Hurley at(925) 370-2548 or [email protected].

2015_03-24

presented by

benefitting

*For sponsorship opportunities, contact Theresa Hurley at

(925) 370-2548 or [email protected].

Featuring:

Auggie Smithnationally renowned comedian

appeared on Live at Gotham

Robin Ceevoted best comedian

by the East Bay Express

MAY 201522

Hopkins’ Choiceby Justice James Marchiano (Ret.)

Each court file was numbered from I to XXI under Marriage of Barbara R. Thomas, Petitioner vs. William G. Thomas, Respondent. The multitudinous pleadings re-vealed a 24-year marriage ending due to irreconcilable differences, the principal difference being Bill Thomas’ relationship with a young-er lady friend.

The Thomases owned a 3,600 square-foot home in Alamo. Bill Thomas ran a successful insurance brokerage business in Danville. Bar-bara Thomas occasionally worked outside the home and spent much of her time doing volunteer work.

The family law judge granted the dissolution, and after refereeing many rounds of name-calling dis-agreements, resolved most of the support and property issues and re-served a large attorney’s fees issue.

Uncivil lawyers and uncivil par-ties engender uncivil fees. Unable to control the mounting fees, Bar-bara belatedly turned off the spigot and discharged her attorney. Now her focus turned to Hopkins, the prized object of her affection.

The severed issue assigned to Judge Carlton involved the custody of “Hopkins.” But who was Hop-kins? The Thomases were childless.

Judge Carlton ascertained from the files that Hopkins was not a dependent, but a pet dog, an intel-ligent, personable, male Welsh Cor-gi, with a resplendent light brown, black and white fur coat, named

J udge Raymond Carlton would not soon forget that Friday morning when a case like no other arrived in Department

47 in Martinez.

While waiting for his jury to reach a verdict, Judge Carlton savored his espresso from Legal Grounds on Main Street and emailed the pre-siding judge, offering to take a short case. Judge Carlton was willing to help out because he knew the fami-ly law judges in the Spinetta Family Law Building were always backed up with a Sisyphean workload.

But he watched with dismay as his clerk maneuvered a shopping cart with files piled almost as high as she was into his chambers. Bur-ied in the stack were pleadings for a severed issue, half-day trial, as-signed to him as a reward for his altruism. He would soon meet Hop-kins.

Adjusting his bifocals, Judge Carl-ton looked at the well worn, ear-marked West’s Annotated Codes on his book shelves and wondered which of the 20,043 Family Code sections this case would involve.

The Legislature enacted 20 Divi-sions with up to 20,043 sections that govern the relationships among husbands and wives, children, do-mestic partnerships, same sex mar-riages, adoptions, and the effects of the rupture of those relationships. Family Law is sui generis within the legal system, with its own rules, case law and delegation of broad ju-dicial discretion.

after the distinguished Welsh actor Anthony Hopkins.

A Welsh Corgi has a life span of around 12 years, and Hopkins had spent almost every minute of his nine years with the doting Thoma-ses, going everywhere with them. Unwilling to compromise, the par-ties drew a line in the sand, each seeking sole, exclusive custody of Hopkins during his remaining years.

Hopkins was a dog of a different color, who could have been sent to King Solomon’s court instead of De-partment 47. Judge Carlton listened intently as pro per Barbara Thomas and Bill Thomas testified about their devotion to Hopkins and why it was in Hopkins’ best interest that sole custody be awarded to him or her.

Only Barbara, who spent each day with Hopkins while Bill was at work or his girlfriend’s townhome, completely understood Hopkins’ needs.

On the other hand, Bill selected Hopkins from a purebred litter, trained him, took him for his vet visits, and brought out Hopkins’ best traits as he led him on walks on weekends.

Inflexibly deadlocked, neither wanted to share custody, and each maintained Hopkins would be dis-consolate and traumatized if left in the custody of the other. An aura of intransigence mixed with antago-nism filled the court room as Hop-

In prior “Stories from the Bray Building,” Judge Carlton considered

incarceration, legal ethics, criminal cases and contentious civil trials.

Now, he presides over an unusual family law matter.


Youngman & Ericsson 1981 North Broadway • Suite 300Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Tax & EstatE Planning attornEys

Youngman.com (925) 930-6000

kins, with his large ears perked up, listened as he sat next to Judge Carlton’s bailiff.

Hopkins’ long standing veterinarian, subpoenaed by the family law court, offered reluctant expert testimony that was at best equivocal without offering any insights to the court. He maintained a cautious distance behind shadowy testimony and was not about to take sides.

Often in custody disputes involving mature children, the child’s preference is given great weight by the judge under Family Code section 3042. But Hopkins only spoke a Welsh dialect that no one understood and wagged his stubby tail, not his tongue. Department 47 was subjected to a final round of remonstrations, and then both sides rested.

Judge Carlton recessed into chambers to ponder over the dilemma, with the 20,043 sections of the Family Code offering little inspiration on how to decide a case in which the evidence seemed evenly divided.

Finally, after a burst of inspiration, he returned to the anxious court room to announce his decision. The judge paused to look over at Hopkins, and then ordered the parties to meet at the Monte Vista High School foot-ball field on Saturday at 9:30 a.m.

Judge Carlton would attend like a referee, poised at the 50-yard line where he would restrain Hopkins. Each of the disputants was to stand alone at the opposite 25-yard lines, and on the judge’s signal, call simul-taneously for Hopkins.

Whomever the corgi ran to would be awarded custody. Hopkins him-self would decide, since a Welsh Cor-gi legally cannot be cut in half.

On an overcast Saturday morning with sup-porting friends on the sidelines, everything was in place.

Barbara called out to Hopkins, waving her hands frantically. Bill bent over, rubbed his palms with his fingers and called to Hopkins, accompanied by an echoing, muffled clicking sound. Hopkins darted immediately to Bill.

With the eagle eye of a sports referee, Judge Carlton saw that Bill held a little, hard biscuit in the palm of his hand. It was the same type of biscuit that Bill gave to Hopkins as a reward for good behavior during their walks, which he always offered with an echo of clicking sounds. Hopkins’ choice became a Hobson’s choice.

Hopkins left with Bill and his smiling girl-friend. But on the following Tuesday, in a carefully written decision, Judge Carlton re-

considered, and exercising his broad judicial discretion, explained that under all of the circumstances, it was in Hopkins’ best interest to reside with each party for two alternating months, then to be returned to the other.

Like a snapshot downloaded from an SD memory card, the judge could not forget the image of a reluctant Hopkins looking back wistfully at a weeping Barbara, as Bill guided him to his BMW. Judge Carlton understood the unspoken words from the empathetic Hopkins.

Every dog has its day. No man can serve two masters, but this perceptive Welsh Corgi could serve a master and a mistress and be spoiled by each.

After the files were returned to the Family Law De-partment, Judge Carlton reflected and hoped he showed a bit of the wisdom King Solomon had. Judge Raymond Carlton had learned the word “wisdom” in Welsh is “cal-lineb”; also the Welsh word for “common sense.” s

MAY 201524

Children, Families and the Law (CFL) Programat JFKU College of Law

by Commissioner Josanna Berkow (Ret.)

J ohn F. Kennedy University College of Law launched the Children, Families and the Law (CFL) program in 2012. Our intent was to create a special-ized curriculum for students interested in explor-

ing the wide and wild world of family law.

We did not want to adopt the traditional narrow ap-proach of classroom lectures. Rather, we wanted to ad-dress the expanding law affecting children and fami-lies in a way that provided students both the necessary doctrinal law as well as the specialized practice skills so critical to a modern family practice.

CFL’s Double Punch: Substantive Law Plus

Specialized Practice Skills

The substantive law component of CFL focuses pri-marily on the basics of family practice: Establishing parentage, custody and visitation, family violence and child and spousal support. A separate Community Prop-erty class covers the principles of the equitable division of the marital estate.

CFL supplements traditional family law doctrine with overviews of the most common “crossover issues” col-lateral to family practice such as juvenile dependency, adoption, guardianship, immigration and elder abuse. Crossover issues are often taught by attorneys with a particular expertise who guest lecture, combining sub-stantive law and practice tips.

The CFL practice skills component includes learning specialized writing skills, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques, the role of experts in CFL litigation and work in the University’s Double Pro Per Settlement (DPPS) clinic. Students are also required to do a 60-hour externship with an experienced, practicing CFL attor-ney.

The CFL Practice Skills Quartet

Writing

Specialized writing skills are developed throughout the course in conjunction with a unit of substantive law (Marriage, Parentage, Family Violence, Custody and Family Support). Students begin with the prepara-tion of Judicial Council forms. As a final, the students prepare and argue a Request for Order (RFO) with Points & Authorities on a complex issue such as relocation or implied income.

Outside Experts

Students learn about the role of outside experts in family practice with a primary focus on mental health and financial experts. Students learn when an expert is needed, the different roles of court-appointed joint ex-perts and those hired by one of the parties, how to direct and analyze expert reports, and how to prepare expert testimony in mediation and in court. We are introduc-ing a new CFL seminar this summer for both law and graduate psychology students titled “Introduction to Psychology in Family Law” that I’ll be co-teaching with Phil Stahl, Ph.D.

Double Pro Per Settlement (DPPS) Clinic

Students must also participate in the DPPS clinic, which is held the second Tuesday evening of the month from February to November. The clinic began in 2013 out of a partnership with the Contra Costa Superior Court and Contra Costa County Bar Association.

When a case is set on the DPPS calendar, the court di-rects both parties to attend the clinic prior to their first settlement conference, which is conducted by volunteer attorneys in the general family law departments.

A Unique Law School Experience and Community Partnership


The clinic provides students an opportunity to apply ADR class ex-ercises in a real-world venue. Volun-teer attorneys begin the clinic with a brief user-friendly summary of disso-lution law and procedures, and then along with the students, they help the parties identify and update the forms and evidence they will need for court.

They also prepare a checklist of agreed and disputed issues for the attorney conducting the in-court conference and help mediate agree-ments where possible. The DPPS clin-ic is held on the University’s Pleasant Hill campus, and is conducted in the evening so the litigants do not have to miss work.

From July 2013 through 2014, the DPPS has brought over 66 percent of the 59 cases to final judgment in an average of five months from clinic to filing. The DPPS clinic continues to evolve and improve. We need more volunteers to give us an evening or two each year. Contact details are provided below.

CFL Externships

The final practice skill component of the program is a 60-hour externship supervised by an experienced CFL attorney. We have been fortunate to work with private practitioners and organizations dedicated to providing students a meaningful experience working on CFL cases at all stages of litigation including supervised court ap-pearances.

To date, students have completed CFL externships in the Family Law Division of the Contra Costa Superior Court, Bay Area Legal Aid, with court-appointed attorneys rep-resenting children and parents in Juvenile Dependency courts in both Alameda and Contra Costa counties, the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS), and with several experienced family law practitioners.

CFL Attorney Volunteers

There is no mandatory pro bono service requirement for practicing attorneys, although the State Bar of Cali-fornia may soon follow New York in mandating 50 hours of pro bono service as a requirement of admission.

Litigants are self-represented in over two-thirds of family cases statewide. We should all do the best we can by volunteering to level the playing field for family litigants facing significant losses of custody and income and the often-negative outcomes experienced by their children.

Until there is funding for self-represented family liti-gants, you can help by volunteering with the CFL pro-gram in one of three ways.

First, you can volunteer to spend one or more eve-nings a year at the DPPS clinic. Second, you could super-vise a CFL student externship next spring. Finally, you can share your expertise as a guest lecturer.

Please contact Sharon Raab at [email protected] to volunteer for the DPPS clinic or Sharon Braz at [email protected] to volunteer to supervise a CFL ex-ternship or teach a guest lecture.

Thank you for supporting the CFL program. s

Commissioner Josanna Berkow retired in 2013 from the Contra Costa Superior Court after 20 years on the family law bench. She is an adjunct professor at the John F. Kennedy University College of Law in Pleasant Hill, where she teaches and serves as faculty advisor for the Children, Families and the Law program. Com-missioner Berkow also works as a temporary judge to review, sign and file uncontested Judgments of Dis-solution. Contact Commissioner Berkow c/o Karen Olson, Legal Document Assistance at (925) 640-2069 or [email protected] or at [email protected].

• Probate,Trust&Estate litigation and administration• ElderAbuse litigation• ConservatorshipandGuardianship

establishment and litigation• FiduciaryRepresentationandCourtAccountings

• EstatePlanning,Wills&Trusts

Freecaseevaluationsforreferringattorneys*Certified Specialist in Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Law – State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization*Selected to Northern California Super Lawyers each year since 2006

Since1949RatedAVby

Martindale-Hubbell

Bray&GreenwoodLLP

Oliver W. Bray* Oliver A. Greenwood

Over 29 years in practice

736FerryStreetMartinez,CA94553

925-228-2550925-370-8558(fax)

[email protected]

[email protected]

MAY 201526


Family Law and Your LRIS

A s most of you know, the CCCBA Lawyer Refer-ral & Information Service assists the public in referrals to qualified attorneys to help meet their legal needs.

What you may not know, however, are the many ways your LRIS can help both clients and attorneys in the family law area of practice.

The LRIS takes approximately 75-100 calls each month from clients looking for some sort of assistance with a family law issue, from adoptions and dissolutions to same-sex relationships. Each caller is carefully screened by LRIS trained intake staff for their particular needs.

The client is charged a $30 administrative fee and our staff contacts an LRIS attorney to schedule an appoint-ment for a 30-minute consultation. The client and the attorney then meet and discuss the client’s particular is-sues.

The LRIS also has several other options available for clients, depending on their individual situation.

Moderate Means Program

The Moderate Means program has been established by the CCCBA in order to provide clients unable to afford the regular fees of a private practicing attorney with a referral to a family law attorney who has agreed to take on certain cases on a reduced-fee basis.

These clients go through a detailed application pro-cess and are qualified based on their income and the number of people in their household, and must provide proof of this income. The Moderate Means program has set up eligibility guidelines for this process. Family law

attorneys can indicate that they wish to take on Mod-erate Means referrals as well as regular referrals when they join the LRIS.

The difference between these cases and regular LRIS referrals is that the attorney pays no percentage fees to the LRIS on Moderate Means cases, as they do on regu-lar referrals (15 percent of attorney’s fees collected on a case).

This is a win-win situation for clients and attorneys alike. The clients can obtain qualified legal assistance that they can afford, and the attorneys (especially new-er attorneys starting out in family law) are able to help people they might not typically be able to reach.

Normal attorney’s fees, within the program guide-lines, are between $40 and $125 per hour, depending on the income level in which the client may fall. Within these guidelines, the hourly fees are set as agreed upon between the attorney and client. Retainer fees of be-tween $500 and $1,000 are also set up between attorney and client.

Limited Scope Program

Another service provided through the LRIS is the Lim-ited Scope program. Unlike other referrals obtained via the LRIS, the half-hour consultation may be primarily reserved for an accurate description of limited repre-sentation services and additional screening of client eligibility by the attorney, rather than direct advice and assistance. Clients are able to obtain these services on a piece-by-piece basis, without paying a retainer fee.

Clients are not the only parties to benefit from this practice—most attorneys find it to be a reciprocal rela-

by Barbara Arsedo

MAY 201528

Your LRIS,

cont. from page 27

Will & Trust LitigationFinancial Elder Abuse

ConservatorshipsEstate Planning

Trust AdministrationProbate

Mediation

Morrill Law Firm

Joseph Morrill, AttorneyHeather Hoekstra, AttorneyNathan Pastor, Attorney

Ruth Koller Burke, Of CounselVahishta Falahati, Of Counsel

Nicole Morrill, ParalegalJill Olivier, Paralegal

2175 N. California Blvd., Suite 424Walnut Creek, CA 94596

3220 Blume Drive, Suite 200Richmond, CA 94806

Phone 925.322.8615 • Fax 925.357.3151

tionship. By expanding their prac-tice to include limited representa-tion, panel attorneys can market their services to a clientele who would not previously be expected to use or hire an attorney.

Panel attorneys charge prevail-ing hourly rates on a pay-as-you-go method of billing. It is truly a win-win opportunity. Many of these Limited Scope or “unbundled” refer-rals have turned into regular retain-er paying clients as well.

FLARe Program

Your LRIS also has a mediation program available to clients. Our Family Law Alternative Resolution (FLARe) program consists of either a 30-minute orientation appoint-ment for $30 with one or both par-ties, or, if both parties are agreeable to mediation, we can provide them

with a 90-minute actual mediation session with a qualified family law mediator for $150.

Once the mediation has been completed, the attorney notifies the LRIS and $120 of the fee col-lected is forwarded to the attorney. If the mediator is hired to prepare any documents or proceed any fur-ther with the attorney, the client is advised that the fees are set by the attorney themselves, after the first 90 minutes, usually at their regular rates.

The LRIS does not discuss any fees with the client beyond their initial appointment.

The cost of participating in the LRIS is $100 annually (the fee is waived if you are only taking Mod-erate Means clients—another ben-efit for newer attorneys trying to establish a family law practice).

It is a minimal cost, compared to the benefits of having qualified, prescreened clients referred to you

for consultation. The cost of giving the client a free 30-minute consulta-tion could be well worth your time, should the client hire you.

The benefits of helping clients who might otherwise not be able to obtain legal counsel, through the Moderate Means or Limited Scope programs, can be rewarding as well.

If you are interested in signing up for any of our panels on the LRIS, information can be found on our website at www.cccba.org/attor-ney/lawyer-referral-network or by calling our office at (925) 686-6900 Ext. 2. s

Barbara Arsedo has been the Law-yer Referral & Information Servic-es/Moderate Means Program Co-ordinator with the CCCBA for over seven years. Barbara also works closely with the California State Bar to assist other California bar associations in setting up and run-ning these programs throughout the state.


ethics corner

Ethics and Capacity

by Carol M. Langford

What should a lawyer do when the cli-ent does not want to follow the law-yer’s advice? What if the client insists on a course of conduct that the lawyer

is convinced is not in the client’s best interests?

The answers to these questions are even more dif-ficult when the client is not a mature, reasonably ob-jective adult, when the client is mentally impaired, or when the client is under extraordinary pressure, such as being involved in a criminal trial or a custo-dy dispute. In many respects, these issues are among the most difficult lawyers ever have to face.

Think of the following situations:

(1) You represent a teenager who wants to resume overnight visits with her father, recently released from prison for child molestation—of the daughter.

(2) Your client is an 85-year-old widow. She has recently befriended her gardener. She calls and tells you she wants to change her will, leaving her house and all of her financial assets to the gardener. You know that her current will leaves every-thing to her two children.

(3) You represent a client on death row, who wants to die.

(4) You represent a distraught and depressed woman who insists on taking the family home in a divorce, even though you know she cannot afford the upkeep and could go bankrupt down the road.

It seems self-evident that the more trust the client has in the lawyer, the more likely the lawyer’s ability to persuade or dissuade, and thus avoid some of the “be-tween Scylla and Charybdis” problems that arise with an impaired client. Of course, no matter how much the client trusts the lawyer, it’s not going to be enough all the time.

So we have to turn to the Rules of Professional Conduct. While the California Rules are woefully inadequate on the impaired client (there is no specific Rule), the ABA Model Rules are more helpful. Courts can look to the ABA Rules when there is no California Rule on point, e.g., People vs. Ballard (1980) 104 Cal. App.3d 757.

ABA Model Rule 1.2 describes settlement and the “objectives of representation” as matters for the client to decide, while the attorney decides other matters. It does not, however, address the question of to what extent the lawyer must follow the client’s stated choices, and when she or he can and should override the client’s wishes.

Consider, for example, the case of David Mason and his two competing attorneys, where filing his appeal took on a life-or-death significance, addressing the ultimate point of the representation itself. His attorney, Charles Marson, tried for nine years to get him out from under a death sentence. Meanwhile, David Mason was trying to get him fired, so he could waive his appellate rights and be executed. He had help in this endeavor—attorney Michael Brady. M

CL

E S

EL

F-S

TUD

Ypl

ease

vis

it C

ontr

a C

osta

Law

yer

On

lin

e at

h

ttp

://c

cla

wy

er.c

ccb

a.o

rg/c

ate

go

ry/s

elf-

stu

dy

-mcl

e an

d cl

ick

on th

is a

rtic

le to

dow

nlo

ad th

e M

CLE

Sel

f-St

udy

test

form

an

d in

stru

ctio

ns.

MAY 201530

Ethics and Capacity,

cont. from page 29

Brady argued that he was just car-rying out his client’s desire to end his life versus facing life imprisonment for his client’s murder of four elderly Oakland residents.

Marson and others argued that with Mason’s history of mental ill-ness, childhood abuse and attempted suicide, he was not competent to make a decision about his future.

On the morning of the execution, the San Francisco Chronicle reported about his attorney Michael Brady: “With the execution only moments away, Brady stood waiting for a sig-nal from Mason to stop the execution and refile a federal appeal the inmate had chosen to withdraw in January. Prison officials and state prosecutors said they would honor any decision by Mason to pursue that appeal, even if he changed his mind while sitting in the execution chamber. But the signal never came.”1

Marson might have relied on ABA Model Rule 1.14 (a). It provides that when a client’s ability “to make ad-equately considered decisions” is im-paired (whether because of minority, mental disability or for some other reason) the lawyer “shall, as far as possible, maintain a normal lawyer-client relationship with the client.”

But what does this mean in prac-tice? What does “as far as possible” mean? Or what about, as in the case of Ted Kaczynski, the man convicted as the Unabomber, his two lawyers believed he was substantially im-paired, but the court found him com-petent to stand trial? Who decides what is in his best interests, as he sees them?

The Bar Association of San Fran-cisco Ethics Opinion 1999-2 provides guidance where the California Rules don’t tread. It holds that “an attorney who reasonably believes that a cli-ent is substantially unable to man-age their own financial resources or resist fraud or undue influence, may,

but is not required to, take protective action with respect to the client’s per-son and property.”

Such action may include recom-mending appointment of a trustee, conservator or guardian ad litem. The attorney has the implied author-ity to make limited disclosures neces-sary to achieve the best interests of the client.

This Opinion was written to clarify the attorney’s duties in light of other Ethics Opinions that would not al-low an attorney to take action. San Diego Ethics Opinion 1978-1 had concluded that no conservatorship could be sought because it would re-veal client confidences. It is true that our confidentiality rule has always been very strict. After the San Diego Opinion, the Rules of Professional Conduct were revised in 1989, but they did not address the impaired cli-ent situation.

The Committee on Professional Re-sponsibility and Conduct (COPRAC) then issued Formal Opinion 1989-112, which concluded that seeking a conservatorship would be acting

adverse to the client and would be a revelation of client secrets. In their view, the lawyer’s option would be to withdraw from the representation.

There is no explicit provision in Rule 3-700, which either permits or requires a member to withdraw from employment based on initiating a conservatorship.

However, under section (C) (1), if the client is engaging in conduct which renders it “unreasonably dif-ficult” to carry out the representation effectively, and that same conduct leads the attorney to the conclusion that the client needs a conservator, withdrawal may be permitted under some circumstances. That is because the attorney must maintain the cli-ent’s confidence and trust.

The Bar Association of San Fran-cisco Ethics Opinion argues that past Opinions hold form over substance, and that in their view it is not an all or nothing proposition. The attorney, for example, can hire a therapist, rel-ative or other intermediary to facili-tate communication with the client.

It holds that action can be taken but should be the least intrusive. I applaud the Bar Association of San Francisco for stepping into the foray and attempting to give guidance to attorneys, even if it is in contradic-tion to the wording of the Rules.

There are California cases that ad-dress how courts deal with a seri-ously impaired client;2 In Re the Con-servatorship of Rooney, Los Angeles Superior Court case No. 126970 (first filed 2011), in which the elderly for-mer actor Mickey Rooney first placed himself under a conservatorship and then sued his stepson for elder abuse, breach of fiduciary duty and misap-propriation.

The case is a textbook example of what can happen to elderly people when their will is overborne by oth-ers. Here, fortunately, Rooney was able to understand the benefits of a conservatorship and placed himself in the conservatorship for his own protection. The pleadings, available online, make for compelling reading.

MCLE SELF-STUDY TEST

To download the test form and instructions for this Self-Study MCLE article, visit www.contracostalawyer.org, and click on the “Self-Study MCLE” link at the top, then click on the “Ethics and Capac-ity” article.

If you prefer to receive the test form via email, contact Liz Galliett at [email protected] or (925) 370-2540.


Northern CaliforniaMediator / Arbitrator

18 years as Mediator27 years as Arbitrator

35 years in Civil Practice

Roger F. Allen

510.832-7770

Ericksen, Arbuthnot155 Grand Avenue, Suite 1050

Oakland, CA 94612

[email protected]

•TrainingincludesMediationCourseat PepperdineUniversity1995

•ServingonKaiserMedicalMalpractice NeutralArbitratorsPanel

•SettlementCommissioner,Alamedaand ContraCostaCounties

•ExperiencedinallareasofTortLitigation, includinginjury,propertydamage,fireloss, malpractice,constructiondefect

CALL FOR BOARD NOMINATIONSYou can be a leader in our legal community as a Director on the CCCBA Board.

The Board seeks candidates who agree to meet the following expectations:

• To possess or acquire a basic understanding of the Contra Costa County Bar Association (CCCBA) and its activities.• To commit to the mission and values of the Association.• To represent the CCCBA in a manner consistent with Board decisions.• To prepare for and regularly attend monthly Board meetings.• To attend additional meetings and bar-sponsored events as needed.• To participate on at least one committee or task force.• To participate in the annual Board Orientation and Training program.• Directors are selected for their experience and personal attributes. Active participation on a CCCBA committee or

section leadership is a plus.

Nomination Process: To be eligible, nominees must be active attorney members of the Association. Any attorney member of the Associa-tion may self-nominate by June 30, 2015, for consideration by the Directors’ Nominating Committee at the regular October Board meeting, for approval by the Board. The Board may accept or reject any or all of the Committee’s nominations. The Board’s decision on the candidates for election as Directors may be supplemented by additional nominations made in writing by any member and seconded by four members of the Association, with the concur-rence of the nominee, by September 30, 2015.

If you are interested in serving on the 2016 Board of Directors (or to fill an existing vacancy), submit your written nomination to: Theresa Hurley, Executive Director 2300 Clayton Rd., Ste. 520, Concord, CA 94520 [email protected] | (925) 370-2548

In truth, though the State Bar can prosecute an attorney for seeking a conservatorship that the client might not want, I doubt that they would want to aggressively go after an at-torney for getting the help that their client needs, as long as it was done in as limited a way as possible. They can and do exercise discretion on matters.

But don’t quote me on that. s

Carol M. Langford is an attorney who advises lawyer on ethics is-sues. She specializes in State Bar defense work and licensing issues before the various professional boards. She is also a lecturer at U.C. Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law.

1 “Mason Put to Death,” Chronicle (San Fran-cisco), Aug. 24, 1993, page one.

2 See People v. Deere, 808 P.2d 1181 (Cal. 1991), and People v. Bolden, 99 Cal.App. 3d 375 (1979).

MAY 201532

inns of court

by Matthew Talbot

When Elder Abuse

Crosses Over

O ne of the joys of being a part of the Inns of Court is the presentation itself. Usually, the pupilage

group (led by a judge) puts on an entertaining and educational pre-sentation, be it a series of vignettes, a game show or a determination on how long it takes for drunk people to sober up.

Once a year, members get to be a part of the presentation and de-termine with the rest of the group which area of the law to discuss. We also work hard to make sure our presentation does not go longer than an hour, thereby delaying din-ner (a truly important concern!).

So, it was with great excitement that Judge Mockler’s pupilage group (Gregory Abel, Renee Haase, David Pastor, Ariel Brownell, Maria Crabtree, Ross Pytlik, Rita Holder and I) provided our presentation on elder abuse on March 12, 2015.

The presentation was compli-cated, because it involved elder abuse law in three different arenas: probate, civil and criminal law. We were tightly scheduled with no time for questions or comments from the crowd.

Whenever the groups take ques-tions from a crowd of 80 lawyers,

dire dinner delays are the result. The problem, of course, is that trying to keep 80 lawyers quiet is like try-ing to ride a bull: Lasting for eight seconds should be considered a suc-cess, and there’s a good chance it will be fatal.

First, we looked at the probate law context for elder abuse. Our fact pattern related to a granddaughter, who unfortunately applied undue influence on her mentally incapac-itated grandmother to obtain her house and thousands of dollars.

David Pastor discussed the role of a conservatorship in assisting a person to manage the care of a vul-nerable and/or elderly person. For example, in this case, a friend was applying for a temporary conserva-torship to immediately protect the grandmother from the granddaugh-ter.

The purpose of a temporary con-servatorship is to stabilize a situ-ation and “stop the bleeding.” In the first vignette, I advocated for the friend being appointed, while Renee Haase argued for the grand-daughter to be appointed. Even though the granddaughter had pri-ority to be conservator, due to the concerns regarding elder abuse, the court chose the friend.

Fast forward to the next hearing on the matter, and now the judge considered who to make as general conservator, which is a more per-manent version of a temporary con-servator. Here, the consideration

was less on who was going to help stabilize the situation for the grand-mother, but rather who was better long term for the grandmother.

At the hearing, I (as the attorney for the friend), was in fiery opposi-tion to the granddaughter and even wanted to obtain a restraining order against her on behalf of her grand-mother.

The court was concerned about restricting the grandmother from seeing her granddaughter and was extremely hesitant to appoint the friend. However, the investigation done by the friend as temporary conservator confirmed the accusa-tions of elder abuse.

As such, the court took action and invited Ariel Brownell, attorney for a neutral third-party professional fiduciary, to argue why a neutral third party was in the best position to manage the care of the conserva-tee.

Even though no party had asked for a professional fiduciary to step in, the court felt it had no choice in protecting the interests of the con-servatee long term and appointed the professional fiduciary to act as conservator, notwithstanding the cost.

The next vignette related to el-der abuse in a civil context and de-picted a court hearing for a Quiet Title action, which is brought when there is a problem with a deed and the ownership situation needs to be clarified.


— WANTED —Conservatorships

think

Matt Tothas in

Pedder, Hesseltine, Walker & Toth, LLP

oldest partnership in Contra Costa County(since 1955)

p 925.283-6816 • f 925.283-36833445 Golden Gate Way

Lafayette, CA 94549

AV Martindale-Hubbell

Here, the granddaughter had con-vinced her grandmother to deed over the house to her. The grand-mother had signed a deed as an in-dividual owner of the house. How-ever, the house was owned by the grandmother as trustee of her trust.

This may seem like a technical-ity, but don’t knock technicalities—they put our kids through college! In the world of deeds, the grantor of the house and the owner of the house must match 100 percent. Since they did not, the deed was never valid.

There was also a second deed, where the deed matched title, but it was signed at a time when all par-ties agreed the grandmother had de-mentia and lacked capacity to un-derstand what she was signing. So, the granddaughter brought a Quiet Title action to resolve the owner-ship situation with the deed.

The court, however, had concerns regarding elder abuse relating to the execution of the first deed and did not issue an order clarifying the title in favor of the granddaughter.

The last vignette related to elder abuse in a criminal setting. Here, Ross Pytlik played the ADA pros-ecuting the granddaughter for vari-ous criminal elder abuse violations, such as fraud. Rita Holder played the PD, who was asserting that her client was preparing an accounting that would vindicate her.

The court wanted to hear from the abused herself, and Maria Crab-tree, playing the grandmother, read a Victim Impact Statement. These statements are written or oral infor-mation from crime victims, in their own words, about how a crime has affected them.

Even though the grandmother was not entirely mentally com-petent, she could still express her feelings and desires about the situ-ation.

Elder abuse is a crime that can be tackled through any number of legal proceedings, be they probate,

civil or criminal. The purpose of this presentation was to take a look at the different proceedings and edu-cate our members.

The signs of elder abuse can often be difficult to determine. It is impor-tant for people to understand how to prevent or avoid it and help their family whenever possible.

If you are interested in applying for RGMAIOC membership, please contact Patricia Kelly at [email protected]. s

3445 Golden Gate WayLafayette, CA 94549 (925) 283-6998

[email protected]

30 years experience Probate-Trust Paralegal

The average survival rate is eight years after being diagnosed with Alzheimer’s — some live as few as three years after diagnosis, while others live as long as 20. Most people with Alzheimer’s don’t die from the disease itself, but from pneumonia, a urinary tract infection or complications from a fall.

Until there’s a cure, people with the disease will need caregiving and legal advice. According to the Alzheimer’s Association, approximately one in ten families has a relative with this disease. Of the four million people living in the U.S. with Alzheimer’s disease, the majority live at home — often receiving care from family members.

Elder Law is

Alzheimer’s Planning

If the diagnosis is Alzheimer’s, call elder law attorney Michael J. Young

Estate Planning, Disability, Medi-Cal, Long-term Care & VA Planning

Protect your loved ones, home and independence.

n 925.256.0298

www.YoungElderLaw.com1931 San Miguel Drive, Suite 220 Walnut Creek, California 94596

MAY 201534

CALENDARUPCOMING EVENTS | OVERVIEW

For up-to-date information on programs, visit www.cccba.org/attorney/calendar and/or

subscribe to our weekly “Events & News” email. To subscribe, text CCCBA to 22828.

May 4-15 | Food From the Bar

24th Annual Food From the Bar Drive

more details on page 35

May 5 | Bankruptcy Law Section

A Loan Modification Primer: Trending Issues for Clients and

Their Counsel Inside and Outside Bankruptcy


May 7 | Res Ipsa Jokuitor XX

Comedy Night & Kickoff for Food from the Bar 2015


May 12 | Tax Section

A Fast-Paced Overview of

Business Valuation for Attorneys


May 27 | Family Law Section

Frazzled? How the State Bar Lawyer’s

Assistance Program Can Help You


May 16 | CCCBA

Bench/Bar BBQ & Softball Game


May 20 | CCCBA

Look Before You Leap in Changing Law Firms,

Part 2 of the 2015 Law Practice Management Series


June 11 | CCCBA

Get to Know Your Family Law Judges


June 17 | CCCBA

Everyone’s Doing It: The Explicit Effect of Implicit Bias,

Part 3 of the 2015 Law Practice Management Series


June 24 | Barristers/Young Lawyers Section

All Sections’ Summer Mixer


700 Ygnacio Valley Rd, Ste 150

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 472-8000

[email protected]

Law Offices of David A. Arietta

BANKRUPTCY ESTATE PLANNING

TRUST ADMINISTRATION AND PROBATE

Certified Specialist Bankruptcy Law State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization

Rated AV Preeminent Martindale-Hubbell www.AriettaLaw.com


May 12 | Tax Section

A Fast-Paced Overview of Business

Valuation for Attorneys

A presentation on the fundamentals of busi-ness valuation (BV) for estate, gift and other tax purposes, buy-sell, shareholder disputes, and succession planning. At the end of this presentation, you’ll be better able to spot issues that affect valuation, and use business valuations more effectively in your practice.

Speaker: Al Statz, CBA, ASA, M&AMI

Time: 12 pm – 1:30 pm

Location: Archer Norris 2033 N. Main St., Ste. 800, Walnut Creek

MCLE: 1 hour tax specialization MCLE credit

Cost: $10 for section members, free for law student members, $15 for CCCBA members, $25 for non-members

Registration: Online atwww.cccba.org/attorney/calendar

More Info: Contact Liz Galliett at (925) 370-2540 or [email protected]

May 5 | Bankruptcy Law Section

A Loan Modification Primer: Trending

Issues for Clients and Their Counsel

Inside and Outside Bankruptcy

Lunch will be provided.

Speaker: Selwyn D. Whitehead, Esq., Bankruptcy Law Certified Specialist

Time: 12 pm – 1:30 pm

Location: CCCBA Office, 5th Floor Conference Room, 2300 Clayton Rd., Concord

MCLE: 1 hour general MCLE credit

Cost: $25 for section members and law student members, $35 for CCCBA members, $45 for non-members



May 4-15 | Food From the Bar

24th Annual Food From the Bar Drive

Make a difference to the hungry people in Contra Costa County (and show those other law firms how generous your firm really is)!

This year marks the 24th Annual Food From the Bar drive benefitting the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano. You can donate money and/or non-perishable food items.

It’s easy, just add some extra items to your shopping cart, then bring them to your of-fice and put it in the Food Bank barrel.

Even easier is to donate money—for every $20 you give, the Food Bank can provide 40 nutritious meals to hungry people in Contra Costa county. All monetary donations are tax-deductible and will be acknowledged.

The firm with the highest per capita figures in each category will receive an individual award for permanent display in their office.

Do your part to feed the hungry in your area. Participate in Food From the Bar!

To donate or for more info, go to www.foodbankccs.org/fftbcc.

May 27 | Family Law Section

Frazzled? How the State Bar Lawyer’s

Assistance Program Can Help You

Meal choices are: Grilled Salmon, Roast Sirloin and Vegetable Risotto

Speaker: Richard Carlton, Acting Director, Lawyer Assistance Program, State Bar of California

Time: 12 pm – 1:15 pm

Location: Contra Costa Country Club, 801 Golf Club Rd., Pleasant Hill

MCLE: 1 hour competence issues MCLE credit

Cost: $50 for section members and law student members, $75 for CCCBA members, $100 for non-members

Registration: Please send payment to FLS, PO Box 5818, Concord, CA 94524

More Info: Contact Therese Bruce at (925) 930-6789 or [email protected]

May 16 | CCCBA

Bench/Bar BBQ & Softball Game

We’ll provide the hamburgers, veggie burg-ers, hot dogs, condiments and soft drinks.

Bring food according to your MCLE Compliance Group:

• Group 1 (A-G): Appetizers• Group 2 (H-M): Salad• Group 3 (N-Z): Dessert• BYOB (no glass containers)

Please arrive promptly if you want to play (bring your glove). Teams will be mixed. Supporters and cheerleaders encouraged.

Time: 3 pm – 6 pm

Location: Heather Farms Park 301 N. San Carlos Dr., Field 5, Walnut Creek

RSVP: Online atwww.cccba.org/attorney/calendar


May 20 | CCCBA

Look Before You Leap in Changing

Law Firms, Part 2 of the 2015 Law

Practice Management Series

This seminar will address in general terms the ethical and practical considerations surrounding the departure of partners and associates from a law firm.

Speakers: Roger J. Brothers, Esq., Buchman Provine Brothers Smith, LLP Richard Frankel, Esq., Frankel Goldware Ferber, LLP

Time: 4:30 pm – 6 pm

Location: JFK University 100 Ellinwood Way, Room S209, Pleasant Hill

MCLE: 1 hour legal ethics, 0.5 hours general MCLE credit

Cost: $20 for CCCBA members, $10 for law student members, $30 for non-members



MAY 201536

June 11 | CCCBA

Get to Know Your Family Law Judges

Please join us for an opportunity to get to know members of our local Family Law bench on a one-to-one basis.

Enjoy refreshments and conversation with Judges Weil, Bowen, Landau, Santos and the newest member of the Family Law Division, Commissioner Kathleen Murphy.

Hosted by Whiting, Fallon, Ross & Abel


Location: Whiting, Fallon, Ross & Abel 101 Ygnacio Valley Rd., Walnut Creek



June 17 | CCCBA

Everyone’s Doing It: The Explicit

Effect of Implicit Bias, Part 3 of the

2015 Law Practice Management

Series

This program is split into two parts: In Part I, Marina Sarmiento Feehan will discuss Implicit Bias; in Part II, Megan Roth will talk about the importance of CRM (Client Relationship Management).

Speakers: Marina Sarmiento Feehan, Esq., Founder, Positive Counsel Megan Roth, Marketing Manager, Insightly


Location: JFK University 100 Ellinwood Way, Room S209, Pleasant Hill

MCLE: 1 hour elimination of bias MCLE credit

Cost: $20 for CCCBA members, $10 for law student members, $30 for non-members



DISPLAY ADVERTISING (black & white rates)

Full page $1,650 3/4 page $1,200 1/2 page $ 900 1/4 page $ 600 1/8 page $ 425

CCCBA MEMBER RATES

LISTINGS

Professional listings in the Services, Experts or ADR Directories are $175. With the purchase of a display ad, you receive one free listing. Additional lines are $50 each. Additional categories are $75 each.

Advertise in the Member Directory

For more information, contact Dawnell Blaylock,

Communications Coordinator at (925) 370-2542 or

[email protected].

Reserve your spot by June 5, 2015

June 24 | Barristers/Young Lawyers Section

All Sections’ Summer Mixer

Join us in celebrating the start of summer! Catch up with old friends, get to know some new faces and relax with your CCCBA colleagues.

This is also your opportunity to learn more about CCCBA’s 19 different sections from section leadership.

This event is FREE to all CCCBA members. We’ll provide appetizers and a drink ticket to everyone in attendance. We hope to see you there!

Please RSVP so that we can make sure to order enough food.

Time: 5 pm – 7:30 pm

Location: Salvio Pacheco Square 2151 Salvio St., Concord




Thank you to our Mock Trial Volunteers

Hon. Steve Austin, Contra Costa Superior CourtBrooke Barnum-Roberts, CCC District Attorney’s OfficeHon. Barry Baskin, Contra Costa Superior CourtHon. Terence Bruiniers, First District Court of AppealHon. Charles Burch, Contra Costa Superior CourtDaniel Cabral, CCC District Attorney’s OfficeMichael Chamberlain, California Department of JusticeJerry Chang, Law Office of Jerry Chang, LLPPatrick Cannon, CCC Public Defender’s OfficeAron DeFerrari, CCC District Attorney’s OfficeHon. Roger Efremsky, United States Bankruptcy CourtHon. Richard Flier (ret.), ADR Services, Inc.Hon. David Flinn (ret.), Contra Costa Superior CourtBarry Grove, CCC District Attorney’s OfficeMatthew Guichard, Guichard, Teng & Portello, LLPBlair Hoffman, California Supreme CourtHon. John Kennedy, Contra Costa Superior CourtHon. Leslie Landau, Contra Costa Superior CourtRobin Lipetzky, Office of the Public DefenderHon. Clare Maier, Contra Costa Superior CourtDirk Manoukian, The Law Office of Dirk ManoukianHon. Terri Mockler, Contra Costa Superior CourtBrett Morris, California Attorney General’s OfficeHon. Dan O’Malley, O’Connor, Runckel & O’Malley, LLPHon. Mary Ann O’Malley, Contra Costa Superior CourtHon. Lowell Richards, Contra Costa Superior CourtHon. Anita Santos, Contra Costa Superior CourtHon. Steve Treat, Contra Costa Superior CourtDominique Yancey, CCC District Attorney’s Office

Volunteer Judges

Colin Alexander, CCC District Attorney’s Office Bhupen Amin, Lotus Hotels & InvestmentsMary Blumberg, CCC District Attorney’s Office Brittany Armstrong, CCC District Attorney’s Office Barakah Amaral, Solano County District Attorney’s OfficeTamara Bartlett, CCC District Attorney’s Office Mary Blumberg, CCC District Attorney’s Office Luke Bernthal, CCC District Attorney’s Office Bradford Bowen, CCC District Attorney’s Office Maryanne Britten, CCC Office of EducationKristen Busby, CCC District Attorney’s Office Matt Caron, CCC District Attorney’s Office Greg Chiarella, CCC District Attorney’s Office Matthew Cody Angelo Costanza, Law Office of Angelo CostanzaSara Craig, Hastings Law SchoolKevin Cunnane, CCC District Attorney’s Office Jachyn Davis, Contra Costa County CounselLaura Delehunt, CCC District Attorney’s Office Steven Derby, The Derby Law FirmEdelmira Diaz-Weaver, Marin Cnty. Public Defender’s OfficeAngela Dib, CCC District Attorney’s Office Eric Dickson, CCC District Attorney’s Office

Volunteer Scorers

Brian Duus, Stubbs & Leone Law OfficeCourtney Dyer, CCC District Attorney’s Office Robert Ewing, Danville City AttorneyScott Fink, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLPCarla Garrett Nicholas Gohn, CCC District Attorney’s Office James Gotch, Stubbs & Leone Law OfficeElla Gower, Miller Starr Regalia, LLPMatt Graham, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean, LLPDave Harris, Miller Starr Regalia, LLPSloan Heffron, CCC District Attorney’s Office Patricia Horner, CCC District Attorney’s Office Matthew Jacobs, CCC District Attorney’s Office Ann Johnston, Coblentz, Patch, Dufy & Bass, LLPMalisha Jones, CCC District Attorney’s Office Kyle Junginger, Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc.Kyle Kahan, CCC District Attorney’s Office Stephanie Kang, CCC District Attorney’s Office Dodie Katague, CCC District Attorney’s Office Kelly Kraetsch, CCC District Attorney’s Office Matthew Kranzthor, CCC District Attorney’s Office Evan Kuluk, CCC Public Defender’s OfficeKevin Lally, Greenan, Peffer, Sallander & Lally, LLPD.J. Lee, Solano County District Attorney’s OfficeJonathan Lee, U.S. Attorney’s OfficePaula Lorentzen, Law Office of Paula LorentzenDoug MacMaster, CCC District Attorney’s Office Leonard Marquez, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean, LLPMolly McClure, Alameda Cnty. Public Defender’s OfficeJay Melaas, CCC District Attorney’s Office Mark Meuser, Meuser Law Group, Inc.Lori Mullins, Golden Gate UniversityMarina Pitts, Stubbs & Leone Law OfficeScott Prosser, CCC District Attorney’s Office Lynnette Quintana, JFKU College of LawPhyllis Redman, CCC District Attorney’s Office Kelly Rem, Lozano Smith, LLP Charina Rhone, Law Office of Matthew J. GonsalvesRay Robinson, Robinson LegalSandra Rosen, Ross Stores, Inc.Jennifer Roque, CCC District Attorney’s Office Christopher Sansoe, CCC District Attorney’s Office Jeremy Seymour, CCC District Attorney’s Office Rachel Sommovilla, City of RichmondThomas Sponsler, Law ProfessorSara Starr, Miller Starr Regalia, LLPAndrea Tavenier, CCC District Attorney’s Office Stephenie Teichman Saron Tesfai, CCC District Attorney’s Office Robin Thornton, Greenan Peffer Sallander & Lally, LLPAmy Tingey Ron Tran, CCC District Attorney’s Office Lauren Whalen, CCC District Attorney’s Office Caleb Webster, CCC District Attorney’s Office Adam Wilks, CCC District Attorney’s Office Jonathan Wolff, California Attorney General’s OfficeJohn Worden, Schiff Hardin, LLPMelanie Yabut, JFKU College of Law

MAY 201538

advertisers index

ADR Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Roger F. Allen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

David Arietta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Barr & Young Attorneys . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Bingham Osborn & Scarborough, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Bray & Greenwood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Dean A. Christopherson . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Diablo Valley Reporting Services . .40

Lenczowski Law Offices . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Morrill Law Firm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Mullin Law Firm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Perry A. Novak ,UBS Financial Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

David B. Pastor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Pedder, Hesseltine, Walker & Toth, LLP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 33

Law Offices of Reed K. Scott . . . . . . . . .8

Scott Valley Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Candice Stoddard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Temmerman, Cilley & Kohlmann . . .7

Lisa M. West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Michael J. Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Youngman & Ericsson . . . . . . . . . . 18, 23

Zandonella Reporting Service . . . . . 39

CLASSIFIEDS

LAW OFFICES AVAILABLE

IN WALNUT CREEK

Three large window offices and one smaller office available in a nine office attorney suite

in downtown Walnut Creek. Offices are on the seventh floor in Class A office building.

All amenities including receptionist, conference room, secretarial area, and

kitchen. Call Elliott at (925) 947-1333 or Larry at (925) 977-3898.

BEAUTIFUL WALNUT CREEK

OFFICE SPACE AVAILABLE

Beautiful offices w/ 7 solos. Networkingposs. Single story converted house w/pillars, built in’s, FP, molding, kit., conf rm,lg treed rear deck, etc. Corner w/ skylight& built-ins. Perfect for working hard andrelaxing at end of long day! Very congenial.No smoking. Call Paul at (925) 938-8990.

DISPLAY AD PRINT MEMBER RATES:

Full page: $ 550Full page Color: $ 6902/3 page: $ 5001/2 page: $ 4151/2 page Color: $ 5201/3 page: $ 3501/6 page: $ 215Business card: $ 1651/12 page: $ 125

CLASSIFIEDS - PRINT:

Member rates are $15 per line for a one-time insertion and $12.50 per line for three or more insertions.

ONLINE AD RATE:

$165/ month for members. Substantial discounts available for three or more insertions.

CLASSIFIEDS - ONLINE:

$50/ month flat fee. In addition to text, you may add photos or graphics at no additional charge.

Advertise in the Contra Costa Lawyer

Call Dawnell Blaylock at (925) 370-2542 or [email protected].

PROBATE PARALEGAL

TO ATTORNEYS

Joanne C. McCarthy. 2204 Concord Blvd. Concord, CA 94520. Call (925) 689-9244.

WALNUT CREEK SPACE WITH VIEW

Single Office For Sublet; Downtown Walnut Creek; 6th Floor View;

Secretarial Setup; Furnished or not; Class A. Call (925) 938-5880.


MAY 201540

DIABLOVALLEY

REPORTINGSERVICESCertified Shorthand Reporters

Serving the entire Bay Area

• Deposition Reporting• Experienced Professional Reporters• Computerized Transcription• Deposition Suites Available• Expeditious Delivery• BART Accessible 2121 N. California Blvd.

Suite 290Walnut Creek, CA 94596

925.930.7388fax [email protected]

Date post:	21-Jul-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	cccba-contra-costa-lawyer
View:	228 times
Download:	1 times

Contra Costa Lawyer, May 2015

Documents