California Injury Attorney Blog

"Bulk sales" laws are intended to prevent business owners from defrauding or evading creditors by transferring all (or a substantial portion) of the assets of the business to another individual or entity. indicates Los Angeles Business Attorney Steven C. Peck.

The law is also intended to avert the possibility of businesses selling their assets below fair market value in a "sweetheart sale," in which the owner of the business manages to maintain a degree of control. For example, the law applies when the business assets are sold to another business that is controlled by the same owner. Virtually all states have adopted the Uniform Commercial Code that gives notice to creditors of bulk transfers of a business's assets.

Generally, when an existing business incorporates there is no plan to defraud creditors. These companies are simply changing the form of the business, and have every intention of honoring the debts of any previous incarnations. In cases where the corporation receives the assets of the unincorporated business and assumes its debts, the bulk sales law is a mere formality. The corporation is accountable for the debts of the business transferring the assets in proportion to the value of the transferred assets.

Concern arises when the business transferring all of its assets to the corporation has debts that the corporation does not assume. The corporation's officers should confer with a lawyer to ensure that the corporation will not be held legally responsible for those debts when it takes the assets from the other business. Bulk sales laws are intended to facilitate settling disputes around this issue says California Business Law Attorney Steven C. Peck.

If the company that is transferring the assets has debts that the corporation is not going to assume, the Fraudulent Transfers Act requires the corporation to take a number of steps before it can issue equities:

The corporation must prepare a Notice to Creditors of Bulk Transfer. The notice is printed in a general circulation paper that covers the judicial district in which the property being transferred is located, at least 12 business days prior to the date of transfer of the property.

The notice must also be published in the judicial district where the principal executive office of the prior business is located. Copies must be filed in each judicial district or county where the property is located and where the prior business had its principal executive office, with the county tax collector and the county recorder, at least 12 business days prior to the transfer.

If the creditors have no objection to the transfer, the corporation can take possession and title to the assets, free of all creditors' claims. If, on the other hand, the prior business's creditors have claims against the property, then special rules come into play under Section 6-106 Commercial Code. When a bulk transfer is about to be made the notice to creditors (Sections 6-105) has to state:

The names and business addresses of the transferor and transferee
All other business names and addresses used by the transferor within the last three years. Whether all of the debts of the transferor will be paid in full, and if so, the address to which creditors should send their bills. If the debts of the transferor are not to be paid in full as they become due, or if there is any doubt about that, the notice must also state the following:

Location and general description of the property to be transferred
Estimate of the transferor's total debts
Address where the schedule of property and list of creditors may be inspected
Whether the transfer is to pay existing debts
The amount of the debts and to whom they are owed
Whether the transfer is for new consideration
The time and place where creditors of the transferor should file their claims
The notice must either be delivered personally or be sent by registered or certified mail to everyone on the list of creditors provided by the transferor. It must also be sent to all other people whom the transferee knows to hold or declare claims against the transferor.

In cases where the corporation is attempting to gain ownership of the property of a prior business in return for its stock, and where the creditors are asserting their rights, the corporation must either pay the creditors (which essentially means they are paying twice for the property) or place the shares in the care of the court and let it determine ownership. In this scenario the corporation may wind up with unforeseen shareholders, leading to unforeseen difficulties.

Continue reading "Bulk Sales Laws Are Intended To Prevent Business Owners From Defrauding or Evading Creditors" »

Legal services are often deemed unnecessary and are often seen as mere additional expense. But you may be overseeing the fact that California business law attorneys can help a great deal in corporate dealings and operations.

They are not only good in issues of litigation such as when you are being investigated for securities fraud by the Security and Exchange Commission or when a customer charges against you for product liability. Business attorneys can also prevent various legal issues that can come out of forming a business, whether a small start-up or a large corporation.

Engaging in the world of business can involve tremendous tasks, from hiring employees to tax issues, from registering and licensing to negotiating business transactions, so on and so forth. It entails so many concerns that it will just be impossible to get your hands on all these alone. You may ask, what makes it so important to seek help from a lawyer?

• A business attorney can make sure your company is in observance with corporate official procedures. A business attorney can draft resolutions, contracts, minutes, etc.

• A business attorney can present direct access to legal guidance with familiarity of your business in times of setbacks to assess circumstances when they happen and give you timely proposals and assistance.

• A business attorney can modify or re-establish crucial agreements like shareholder, operating or purchase agreements.

• A business attorney can advice you with your legal options and ways to resolve disputes

• A business attorney can give a classified sounding board to aid, evaluate, and develop company issues, strategies and plans.

• A business attorney can organize employee policies/handbooks and employment agreements defending you from unlawful termination and discrimination charges.

• A business attorney can identify probable problems that you may not expect with your company, its operations, its employees, policies and procedures.

• A business attorney can arrange and examine business documents and contracts. Even though there are a number of pre-printed forms and self-help legal guides, you must not depend on these resources completely. Business law can be complex, and errors could be costly.

• A business attorney can negotiate on your behalf for the sale of your company or the possession of another company or its assets.

A business attorney can negotiate financial arrangements.

• A business attorney can help you in getting State and Federal licenses your business may call for.

• A business attorney can help you protect your company's creative works and intellectual property.

How do you choose the right business law attorney in California? Hiring a corporate legal counsel you can trust and rely on is of utmost importance. You need to be at ease enough with your lawyer to discuss confidential matters with him or her. You also need a counsel whom you can have confidence with.

In addition, find an attorney who you can communicate with easily, one who can keep in touch with you regularly, and a person who finds time to meet or talk with you personally to discuss your concerns.

It is highly advisable that you get a business attorney who has the necessary background experience that will meet your legal needs. Seek one who has expertise with business laws, and who is well versed, knowledgeable and skilled with business legal matters.

Though hiring a business attorney does entail financial expense, the little amount you would be spending will not compare to the thousands of dollars your company would be paying in case you are faced with contractual or employment disputes. Having appropriately arranged contracts at the onset may avert the matter from ever proceeding to a lawsuit.

Our California attorneys have solid background in handling various cases involving the Business Law. For free evaluation of your case, log on to our website at www.premierlegal.org fill ot our form or contact us toll free at 1.866.999.9085.

It really is of essential implication that people ought to be educated regarding business law and commercial litigation . A business is also called a company, enterprise or firm is really a legally credited organization designed to provide goods or services to customers. Businesses are best in capitalist economies most being privately held and made to generate income that will improve the wealth of its possessors and improve the business itself. The keepers and operators of a business have, as one of their major objectives, the receipt or generation of a financial return in return for work and acceptance of risk. Notable exceptions consist of cooperative enterprises and state-owned enterprises. Businesses can also be formed not-for-profit or be state-owned. It really is of crucial implication that people must be educated about business law and commercial litigation . A business is otherwise known as a company, enterprise or firm is really a legally acknowledged organization designed to provide goods or services to customers. Businesses are best in capitalist economies most being privately possessed and made to earn profit that may optimize the success of its owners and grow the business itself. The keepers and operators of a business have, as one of their major objectives, the receipt or generation of a financial return in return for work and acceptance of risk. Notable exceptions can include cooperative enterprises and state-owned enterprises. Businesses can also be formed not-for-profit or be state-owned.

In layman terminology it's just the typical activity or enterprise entered into for profit is known as business. It doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be a company, a corporation, partnership, or have any such formal organization, but it can range from a street peddler to General Motors. It is sometimes significant to figure out if an accident, visit, travel, meal or other activity was part of "business" or for pleasure or no particular reason. Classic examples include suits for :

* Misrepresent of Intellectual Property: Patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade dress, service marks, and trade secrets.

*Antitrust Violations: Monopolization of a line of business, group boycotts, price discrimination, tying arrangements, and conspiracies to fix prices, allocate consumers, divide territories, or if not prevent competition.

*Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices: Misrepresentations and fraud in business transactions.

*Securities Law Violations: Includes the act of manipulation or deception along with purchase and selling stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and various securities transaction, whether or not privately or on an open market like the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq.

Abuses of Trust: Breaches of fiduciary responsibilities by people found in positions of trust, including corporation's officers and administrators, representatives, trustees, partners, or majority stockholders.

Employer/Employee Disputes: Overtime, disabilities, health and pension packages, and also partiality age, including but not limited to race, in addition to gender.

Gathering of Debt: Promissory notes, guarantee agreements, and mortgages/deeds of trust.

Failure of Agreement: Mergers and acquirement|, acquisitions and deals of securities, transactions in real estate and other business assets, and contracts to provide goods or services.

Tortuous Interference with Deal: A third party's hindering or avoiding efficiency of an agreement.

Agreements Restraining Rivalry: Non-competition, non-solicitation, and non-disclosure agreements by former business owners and employees. These suits often include requests for emergency relief such as a restraining order or pre-trial admonition.

Potential arguments between the possessors aren't even on the radar, frequently because the business partners are long-time friends or relatives. Commercial transactions and business relationships sometimes get difficult and sadly, transform into disputes, ending up in pricey litigation. Failure to settle the dispute by way of negotiations or discussions among the parties, one party may find that litigation is the only means to end the matter. Regrettably, litigation is often a truth of modern business life. When you are confronted with commercial litigation issues, you need the guidance of an experienced commercial litigation attorney to help you resolve the problem with possible minimal cost. Commercial litigation is a general term that applies to any type of litigation or controversy related to business issues. This generally entails two or more businesses in a dispute over money or other assets.

Continue reading "The Business Law Attributes of Commercial Business" »

The Arizona law, is that if law enforcement suspects a person is illegal they can ask for papers. If no papers are provided then they can be detained. Are they not supposed to carry papers on them to begin with?

There is a drain on the economy due to illegal immigration. The businesses that say people won't do the work is a joke -- they just don't want to pay fair wages when they found a way to pay someone less. Fine the heck out of the businesses that practice this kind of employment. There are plenty of legal residents who will do the work for a fair wage, but business owners want to get rich at any cost no matter the ripple effect caused by these actions.

There are ways to come into this country legally for a reason this is just part of it. So in my opinion, Arizona is just enforcing a law that should already have been enforced. This is a problem that politicians don't want to get there hands dirty with. At what cost? Could this lead to another civil war?

People are tired of this problem. Tempers are flaring just look: at the blogs -- this topic brings out every time someone says anything about it. So those in politics should open their eyes and address this issue before it becomes a bigger problem and totally destroys this country our ancestors built, more than we already have.

Continue reading "The Business of the Arizona Immigration Law" »

A Ponzi scheme is a common kind of investment fraud in which there is no investment. Instead of putting investors' money into something - stocks, bonds, commercial real estate, an interest in a South African diamond mine, collectible plates, anything - the scheme organizer uses the investors' own money to pay them while skimming off a piece for himself. Sometimes it's a very big piece - yeah, we're looking at you, Bernie Madoff says California Business Lawyer Steven C. Peck.

In some cases, the promoter uses your own money to pay you. For example, suppose you invested $20,000 with a "broker" who promised you a 15 percent per year return on your principal. That's earning $3,000 a year.

Your "broker" could take $5,000 for himself off the top, then pay you out $3,000 a year from your own money, claiming it's interest earned, appreciation or some other return on investment. He could keep this up for five years before running out of cash.

If a Ponzi-scheme organizer uses later investors' money to pay off earlier investors, he can juggle the balls for many, many years. As long as enough new investors keep coming in to pay previous investors, the con man can keep the fraudulent balls in the air indicates California Business Attorney Steven C. Peck.

For example, we don't know exactly how long Madoff worked at his scheme, but it went back at least to 1999 when Harry Markopolos tried vainly to alert the SEC to him. The criminal complaint against Madoff pegs the start to the beginning of the '90s.

A Ponzi scheme is fraud, pure and simple - it's hard to find something that's more of a fraud. So there is no doubt but the victims have a cause of action. However, there are two big problems:

•Is there any money left? Ponzi schemes are often unmasked only when there's not enough money left to keep payments trickling out to investors. That means there may not be anything to recover: It's all been sent out or spent by the mastermind on living the good life.

Again, take Bernie Madoff: Most estimates put the amount of losses at around $65 billion, but Madoff's own assets - at least the ones they can prove so far - are less than $1 billion. That's less than a nickel on the dollar available for his victims to recover.

•Were you paid out early? If so, you may have to pony up, too. Remember, in a Ponzi scheme, there are no investments, which means there are no legitimate investment returns. Every dollar paid out came from an investor. The earliest "victims" of a Ponzi scheme may do actually do well, getting payments from later investors for a period of years. So earlier investors may have made a pretty penny.

Unfortunately, it's all ill-gotten gains and other people's money, which means later victims can seek to recover that money.

A pyramid scheme is similar to a Ponzi scheme. The big difference is that unlike a Ponzi scheme, where there is one - or a very few people - who act as the hub and take money from everyone, in a pyramid scheme each person recruits and takes money from later participants. Therefore, there can be many "winners" in a pyramid scheme - at least until the scheme runs out of new recruits and the last round of participants is left holding the bag.

For example, say that Participant 1 recruits 10 people and gets $10,000 from each. He's $100,000 to the good. Participants 2 - 11 each then recruit 10 more people and get $10,000 each, so they also make $100,000 apiece. Then participants 12 - 102 have to get money from 10 each, or 1,000 more people. This is what gives the scheme its classic pyramidal shape: each "level" is wider than the one before it.

The problem is, it must come to a crashing halt at some point. Exponential growth curves get to truly outrageous levels fast. In our example, if each person needs to recruit 10, then the third round of participants totals 1,000 people. The fourth round is 10,000; the fifth, 100,000; sixth, 1 million; seventh, 10 million; eighth, 100 million, or one in three Americans; ninth round, you've have to have one in six human beings, or 1 billion people, participating. And there is no tenth round.

Since it would be fairly miraculous - if that's the right word - for a scam to sweep up a billion people, most pyramid schemes end far faster and less dramatically than our example.

To recap: The only real difference between a Ponzi scheme and a pyramid scheme is that in a pyramid scheme, more people profit. But in both, there are no goods, services or investments - just the use of later payments to pay earlier participants and scheme organizers.

Continue reading "The Ponzi and Pyramid Schemes" »

Claims against a broker may be based on three separate types of laws:

•Federal securities law

•State securities law

•Common law

The Feds - Going to the Top
The most significant laws regulating the sale of securities - and the behavior of brokers, investment advisers and mutual fund managers - are the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These are the laws that set out the entire framework of federal securities regulation, including establishing the Securities Exchange Commission says California Business Attorney Steven C. Peck.

They, and the rules made under their authority, dominate U.S. securities regulations - though there are other laws, such as state "blue sky" laws or common law that also regulate the markets and the behavior of people in them. But they are nowhere near as important as the '33 act and '34 act and their rules.

Of the two, the 1934 act is more important if you feel that your broker did you dirty. So let's start with the 1933 act, to get it out of the way.

The 1933 act primarily regulates the initial offering of stocks. It requires that most securities are registered before they can be sold, that a written prospectus containing certain critical information accompanies them, and that this information is accurate.

Section 12 of the 1933 act establishes civil liability for violations - in other words, it lets you sue if the broker didn't provide you critical information, or if the information was untrue. However, most of the time, if your broker is buying or selling securities for you, it's in the secondary market, which means after the securities were initially offered to the public. As a result, the 1993 act is usually less important for establishing liability against your broker.

The 1934 act regulates any purchase or sale of securities, including on the secondary market. Section 10 of the 1934 act says that it's illegal to use or employ any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in connection with the purchase or sale of any security indicated California Business Attorney Steven C. Peck.

The most important rule under the authority of the '34 act, Rule 10b-5, says that is illegal for anyone, while buying or selling securities, to:

•Employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud;

•Make any untrue statement of material, or important, fact, or fail to say something necessary to avoid misleading or deceiving - basically, no lying by either commission or omission; and,

•Engage in any act, practice or course of business that intends to defraud or deceive an individual.

As you can see, Section 10 of the 1934 act and Rule 10b-5 cast a very broad net. Pretty much any deceit or trickery is forbidden. And since the Supreme Court has found that there is private right of action - i.e., you can sue - under the '34 act, you can use this powerful and broad tool to sue if you feel you were deceived or tricked.

However, since liability under the '34 act is based in fraud - deliberate deceit - you have to show what's called scienter, or the intent to deceive. So you need to find evidence establishing a "bad state of mind" on the part of your broker.

Without evidence that your broker meant to deceive you, you have no case, though some courts have allowed a showing of recklessness, which is even "more negligent" than gross negligence, to be enough.

State Your Claim
States have their own securities laws, called "blue sky" laws, that vary from state to state. Most state laws typically require companies to register their offerings before they can be sold in that state. The laws also license brokerage firms, brokers and investment advisers in the state.

Sometimes, as with New York, the state law helps the government regulate brokers and mutual funds but doesn't provide a "private right of action" - i.e., you can't use the law to sue.

Other times, they do establish additional legal grounds for the victims of unscrupulous or negligent brokers and fund managers to seek redress. You should be sure to check your own state law to see what rights they provide.

Other Common (Law) Grounds for Legal Action
Common law is law based in court cases and judicial decisions, rather than statute or legislation. It's a key feature of English and American law, and it's law that has grown up organically over time, as judges apply principles and decide cases, rather than being laid down by a state legislature or Congress, or by some administrative or rule-making body. Many important areas of law such as torts - which is the law of "somebody done somebody wrong," such as suing your neighbor because his dog bit you - are defined mostly by common law, not by statute.

Your state of residency matters. Remember, courts make common law. A court in New York doesn't have to listen to a Delaware court, or Pennsylvania, or California. The different court systems interpret the common law in different ways. What might be a winning legal proposition in one state is not necessarily one in another state. You have to check your own state's laws to know where you stand on common law causes of action.

There are four common law grounds for suing your broker, investment adviser or fund manager: fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and negligence. Since three of those are also specific claims or causes of action against your broker, they're reviewed in the Types of Claims section.

However, since fraud cuts across several claims - including important ones, such as misrepresentation, churning and unsuitability - let's go over those elements of fraud important to any fraud-based claim.

Fraud is "theft by deception." It's stealing by trickery. Fraud is the chief common law basis for a claim against a broker, financial adviser or fund manager who lied to you, misrepresented risks, or misused control over your account to steal.

Ultimately, many different claims are based on fraud: churning is a type of fraud, as is making misrepresentations. It's broad; it's intuitively easy to grasp; it's powerful.

Fraud is a great basis for claims against brokers who have acted improperly, except for the fact that fraud requires intent to defraud or steal.

Sometimes that's just not there - your broker was an idiot or careless to the point of idiocy, but not a crook. And even when the intent to steal was there, it may be hard to prove.

Look to your state law to see exactly what you need to prove and how hard it is to prove it, and make sure to check out the potential claims in detail.

Continue reading ""Blue Sky" Claims Against Your Broker" »

You've lost money in the market - maybe a substantial amount. What you thought was a way to provide for your retirement or your children's education has instead robbed you of that future, or at least delayed your plans.

You're hurt and you're angry - understandably so - and you think someone needs to make you whole.

Can you sue your broker, fund manager or financial adviser? It depends.

The Big Question: Were You a Victim of Fraud or the Market?
The big question is whether your broker did anything illegal. You can sue only if what your broker did was more than just "bad" in the sense of "unfortunate" or even "awful." Instead, there must have been actual wrongdoing.

Losing money in the market, no matter how much, doesn't give you the right to sue. Sometimes it's just bad luck. After all, investing - even in blue chip investments - carries risks, and the main risk is that the value of your investment will decline. Note: Throughout this article, we'll generally call brokers, advisers and fund managers "brokers" to keep things simple.

What if your broker gave you bad advice? It depends on "how bad." If your broker recommended investments that were in line with your investor profile, and those recommendations were reasonable based on everything your broker knew or should have known, then no - you can't sue.

What kind of bad behavior does result in liability? Basically, there are four kinds of bad behavior that may give you the right to sue your broker:

1.Lying or misrepresenting claims;

2.Your broker acting in his interests, not yours, such as claims of misrepresentation, churning, unsuitability and lack of diversification;

3.Not following instructions, including claims of unsuitability, lack of diversification and breach of contract; and,

4.Unreasonable carelessness, like claims of breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

There are a number of different claims that can come out of these bad behaviors, but fundamentally, if your broker didn't do one or more of these things, there is no claim.

To put it another way: If your broker followed your instructions, was always honest with you and was reasonably careful, then you can't sue him - even if his advice or investments went horribly wrong.

So before suing or filing the paperwork for arbitration, take a deep breath and ask yourself if your broker lied, ignored your instructions, was unreasonably careless or put his own interests ahead of yours. If the answer is no, and all he did - with the best intentions, and based on what he reasonably knew at the time - was put you into investments that tanked, then there is no liability.

You'll notice that we did not answer the question of, "What if my broker stole or embezzled money from my account?" That's because the answer is simple - sue their assets off and report them to law enforcement.

Theft is theft, whether it's by your broker, a guy on a street corner with a gun or that cousin you never really trusted anyway. Even so, in a later section, we cover two common criminal schemes involving investments and securities, the Ponzi scheme and the pyramid scheme. But the short answer is that theft is always actionable.

Can't Base a Claim on Hindsight
This particularly applies to claims based in negligence.

In retrospect, we'd all agree that investing heavily in dotcoms that had no profits or real business plans, had inexperienced management and believed all that mattered were "clicks" or "eyeballs" was not a good idea.

Except that in the late '90s, it was a good idea. Common wisdom was that the New Economy had slipped the surly bonds of economic constraints and would touch the face of God - or at least keep appreciating in value pretty near forever.

Millions of people, either directly or through their mutual funds, invested large portions of their portfolios and assets in dotcoms (including ones with a sock puppet "spokesman"). A lot of very knowledgeable, very sophisticated brokers, analysts, advisers and investors were taken in by the hype.

So, in retrospect, the dotcom bubble was an implosion waiting to happen. But at the time, it seemed like a good idea. It would have been very hard to show that your broker was negligent in recommending tech stocks when everyone was buying them.

As always, it's in your interest to stay actively involved in managing your investments, and you have certain obligations to do so in order to hold your broker responsible for any wrongdoing

Continue reading "Bad Business Broker or Just Plain Bad Luck" »

Whether it's a private action under the 1934 act, an action under your state's securities laws, or a common law action for breach of fiduciary duty or contract, there are grounds for suing if your broker stole from you, lied to you or cheated you in some way.

Time to head for court? Not quite. It's very unlikely you can actually take your broker to court. Most likely, you'll need to bring him or her to arbitration.

So you may be asking yourself, "Why did they just waste my time telling me about grounds to sue if they don't matter and I can't get to court?" It's because the causes of action matter, as they are what give you right to take action. If there wasn't a violation of securities laws or a breach of a common law duty, there is no lawsuit or arbitration.

Arbitration is a method of dispute resolution in civil cases. It's an alternative to going to court. One or a group of arbitrators hear both sides of the story then render a decision. Basically, arbitration is a court without judge, jury or formality; the arbitrators, who take the place of judges, are essentially knowledgeable laypeople.

There is a lot to recommend arbitration. Because of the informality, it tends to be much less expensive than going to court. It's also quicker, so you'll get your "day in court" faster, and without mortgaging your home to pay your attorney. In fact, owing to the informality and the nature of the process, you could represent yourself without a lawyer, though one is still recommended - if you think your case is worth pursing, it's worth pursuing the right way.

But in life, you generally take the bad with the good, and that's true of arbitration, too. The downsides to arbitration are:

1.There is less right of review or appeal - if the decision goes against you in arbitration, it's very difficult to reverse it;

2.Arbitrators don't have to follow precedent, or what's been decided before, the way judges do, so the outcome may be more arbitrary; and,

3.Most importantly, your brokerage or mutual fund wants arbitration, which is itself almost enough reason to go to court instead.

In the typical securities arbitration, one of the three arbitrators will be an industry professional. That person may be more likely to find for your broker, or at least to reduce the amount you might win. After all, do you think your brokerage or mutual fund would want arbitration if it was more likely to be bad for them? Almost by definition in disputes, if the other side wants something, it's good for them, bad for you.

Unfortunately, you almost certainly do not have a choice. Almost all brokerage account or mutual fund agreements will contain a clause saying that any disputes - and a claim that your broker defrauded you is certainly a "dispute" - will go to arbitration. Remember, those agreements are contracts; you're bound by what you agreed to in writing by signing the agreement, and courts have consistently found arbitration clauses in brokerage contracts valid and enforceable.

By signing an account agreement, you agree to everything in it. Since pretty much all agreements have an arbitration clause - you'd have to look really hard to find one without - you're going to end up in arbitration if you bring an action, and you'll probably be in FINRA's arbitration process.

What Is FINRA?
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is the largest "non-governmental regulator" for securities firms in the United States. It's an SRO, or self-regulatory organization, and it does much of the regulation and policing of the securities industry. It was formed from a merger of the National Association of Securities Dealers and the self-regulatory functions of the New York Stock Exchange.

And it is very likely to provide the people who hear your arbitration case. Worried? You probably should be, since brokers and funds - you know, the entities you're thinking of suing - make up FINRA's membership.

FINRA says it's impartial, and let's give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it tries. But realistically, its members must find it hard to be unbiased toward the people they identify with, who they may have worked with in the past or may work for in the future, and whose funding keeps their organization afloat.

Just like the FDA is often accused of leaning too much in the direction of pharmaceutical companies, or the FAA of being too much about keeping airlines running and not enough about keeping air travel safe, industry organizations often end up being "captured" by their industries and putting industry interests first.

Typical Securities Arbitration
Since your claim is almost certainly going to end up in arbitration, let's look at a typical one. And since so many securities industry arbitrations are under the auspices of FINRA, let's look at the FINRA dispute resolution process.

Before getting to arbitration - that is, before filing a formal claim - FINRA recommends you report the problem to your broker's or adviser's manager. Their boss or company may be able to help you.

If there's no joy - i.e., they don't provide the relief or compensation you think you're entitled to - another FINRA-recommended option is voluntary mediation. A mediator - a professional negotiator or middleman - may be able to help you and your broker come to terms that work for both sides.

However, if that doesn't happen, it's on to the arbitration process:

•File a claim: In a lawsuit, you'd start the ball rolling by filing a complaint. Here, you file a Statement of Claim, which describes what happened, why you think you have a claim and how much money is at stake. You'll also file a Submission Agreement, which confirms that you have selected arbitration and agree to be bound by it. Of course, you're there in the first place only because your brokerage agreement said you had to arbitrate.

•Serve the claim on the respondent, which is the broker and/or brokerage. Now they know you're proceeding against them.

•Small claim - $25,000 or less: Usually, there will be one arbitrator, and he or she will resolve the matter and render a decision without any in-person hearings, based just on your and your broker's written materials and evidence. You do have the right to request in-person hearings, though, and if you do, or if it's a larger claim, you proceed to the next step.

•Large claim or request for in-person hearing: You'll present your case before an arbitration panel of three arbitrators. The parties - you and your broker - choose the arbitrators from computer-generated lists provided by FINRA. You'll appear before the arbitrators, and each side has an opportunity to present its case and rebut the other side's case. You need to have evidence to back up your claims, and you have the right to cross-examine the other side's witnesses.

•"The decision is...." If it was a single arbitrator, he or she just makes a decision; if it was a panel, majority rules. In either event, the arbitrators come up with a decision and that's that.

Note: They don't need to provide the reasons behind their decisions in writing unless you requested they do so in advance and in writing.

Arbitrator decisions are final. The arbitrators themselves cannot reconsider them; there's no "arbitration appeals panel"; and even courts are very limited in being able to review, and reluctant to second-guess, arbitration awards. You will almost never win if you later challenge the award in court.

Some of the best news is, besides arbitration being cheaper than a lawsuit, it's typically a lot faster, too. According to FINRA's typical time frame, from start to finish - claim to award - arbitration might take only two to three months. You will not get that kind of turnaround from court.

Arbitration vs. Mediation
Often talked about together as "alternative dispute resolution" - in other words, not court - arbitration and mediation are actually very different.

Arbitration has teeth, and the arbitrator's job is to use them. This means that an arbitrator listens to evidence and renders an enforceable decision. In that respect, arbitration is like court, just with fewer rules and procedures, no judge, less cost and less right of review or appeal. Think of it as an "alternative court."

Mediation is just suggestive. The mediator's job is to help you and the other side come to an agreement. It's not the mediator's job to cram down a decision, and he or she does not have the power to make one stick, anyway.

Mediation is purely voluntary. Note that a good mediator can help you get to a satisfactory result - FINRA claims 80 percent of mediations end up settling, which means that both sides came to something they could live with. Since it is voluntary and you could always walk away if you don't like where it's going, it may be well worth your while to try mediation.

Who is the "other side"? Consider who you should file a complaint against - just your broker or also your broker's employer.

Continue reading "Out of Court: Some Simple Facts Attributable to Arbitration" »

Broker or mutual fund: Suing your fund is suing yourself. A broker is someone who acts as your agent, buying or selling securities for you. However, like real estate brokers, they are buying or selling things that belong to other people, acting as middlemen.
When you invest in a mutual fund, you are buying a piece of the fund. Even if the fund then turns around and invests its money in stocks and bonds, what you own is a piece of the fund, not the underlying stocks and bonds. It's like investing in a business that happens to own real estate - you own a piece of the company, not a piece of Main Street says California Business Lawyer Steven C. Peck.

The reason this is a critical distinction is that mutual funds can use their money - which is really your money - to defend themselves from a lawsuit. That means that when you sue them, they hire their lawyers and experts, pay court costs and - if they lose - pay damages with your money. In some ways, therefore, you are suing yourself indicates California Business Attorney Steven C. Peck.

If you're a smaller investor, even though your money is a piece of the fund's money, it's only a small piece. If you think the fund did you dirty, it still makes sense to sue, because your money will be less than 1 percent - or less than 1 percent of 1 percent of 1 percent - of the fund, and most of the expenses will be borne by the other investors.

However, this "shoot the hostages" feature of mutual funds deters large institutional investors, such as pension funds, from suing. In other words, the institutional investor owns a large enough percentage of the mutual fund that suing can becounterproductive.

Brokers and their bosses or companies - sue 'em all and let the courts sort it out. Speaking of, "Whose money is it?" and, "How much money is there?" if you think you have a cause of action, sue the brokerage - your broker's boss or employer - as well as your broker says Los Angeles Business Attorney Steven C. Peck who may be contacted toll free at 1.866.999.9085.

The brokerage will have much deeper pockets as well as more at stake than an individual broker will. An individual, even a successful broker, may not have enough to pay your claim if you win. They may also find it to their advantage to simply declare bankruptcy or otherwise fold their tent and walk away if there's a large settlement against them. It's a much better bet that you'll collect from a business worth millions or billions.

And, no, suing your broker's boss isn't only about having access to deeper pockets. Your broker's supervisor has an obligation to supervise your broker, especially if they knew or had reason to know - such as from prior complaints, or your broker's previous work history - that they really should have been supervising him or her closely. A failure to supervise is actionable.

More generally, businesses are often responsible for the actions of their employees, at least actions taken within the course of business - which for a brokerage means: when brokers trade stocks.

Continue reading "The Irony of Suing Your Mutual Fund" »

Whether you are starting a new business or simply trying to bring new life to your current business, a good starting point is the incorporation of the best strategies for marketing. Without a business plan and a detailed strategy to guide you, you will be forever lost.

Most business owners have heard of strategic marketing, but you do not know how it applies to their activities. The reality is that many owners try to help their companies survive in these difficult economic times, then think about things like marketing strategies and business communication seems impossible. However, putting aside something as important as your marketing strategy leaves more vulnerable to hard times. Now more than ever, is when your company needs a solid plan for success.

The first step in creating a marketing strategy company is to explore, and lots of it. Want to know what's going up and the industry and understand your target audience. It is amazing how many business owners do not even take into consideration their target audience?? interests and needs of marketing their business. As the investigation of this goal, everything about them, their likes and dislikes and what motivates buying decisions.

Once you do research, they are more able to adapt their marketing communications message effectively connect with potential customers. Its traffic and customer conversions, no doubt, will increase as to meet customers when they are with the solutions they need.

See how you can set your business apart from the competition. By developing new products and creative solutions, your company stand out. Do something that nobody else does, except the bonus reports, training video, or newsletters. Offer your potential customers and offering them something of value free, and you'll be able to draw on, earning their respect and trust, and then offer products and services that become paying customers.

Another important part of creating a marketing strategy is to identify the desired future of your business. Look ahead of one, five and ten years on the road. Where do you want your company is? Note the different trends in marketing and how to promote your business uses. For example, the integration of video marketing webinars, and social marketing. These tools can help your company stay ahead of marketing. Your potential customers will see their work as professional and competent, which is always a premium to secure new sales.

A business without strategy is like a traveler without a card. You want to carefully plan their marketing efforts to be where you want to spend months and years from now. If you need help to trace their marketing business, consider investing in professional services. Expert assistance can help boost your marketing with confidence, knowing that they have methods in place to take your business to the top of the industry.

Continue reading "Business Marketing Helps In Hard Times" »

Companies and their in-house attorneys were given an amazing gift by the California Court of Appeal this week.

The case in question arose from an innocent little wage claim. Maria Gutierrez was a cashier at a gas station owned by G&M Oil Company. She sued G&M, claiming that the company had failed to provide workers with meal breaks or to compensate them for the time they would spend counting out their registers at the end of a shift.

G&M was represented by Michael Gray, who was both the family-owned company's Vice President and General Counsel, as well as the son of the company's CFO. According to the court's opinion, the trial court entered a $4 million default judgment against G&M after Gray failed to defend the action. Not surprisingly, G&M removed Gray and brought in outside counsel to challenge the huge judgment with a motion to vacate.

The motion to vacate presented some interesting issues. Under Code of Civil Procedure § 473, a court "shall" grant a motion to vacate if the attorney screws up, and is willing to sign what is referred to as a "mea culpa" declaration, admitting his or her mistake, and begging that it not be imputed to the client. But here, since Gray was the Vice President of the company, he in essence was the client, so the mea culpa declaration was basically saying, "don't hold me responsible for what I chose to do." Unlike an innocent client who did not know that his attorney was dropping the ball, shouldn't a company be held to the decisions of its attorney when that attorney is part of the company? The trial court did not think so, and ruled that an attorney is an attorney, whether in-house or not. The trial court granted the motion to vacate, threw out the default judgment and put the matter back on the trial calendar.

Labor claims are typically handled on a contingency basis, often for one-third of any amount recovered, and the Labor Codes provide for recovery of all attorney fees, so you can imagine how crestfallen plaintiff's counsel was when the court threw out what may have been a more than $1.4 million pay day. The ruling on the motion to vacate was appealed.

The Court of Appeal sided with G&M, and upheld the trial court's decision to vacate the judgment. The court was willing to view Gray as wearing two hats. Yes, he was an officer of the company, but for purposes of the litigation he was acting as the company's general counsel, and not as an officer.

Was the ruling by the Court of Appeal correct? Often bad facts make bad law. The specter of a four million dollar default judgment, combined with the fact that, according to the decision, Gray had kept the action a secret from the rest of the company officers, meant that the trial court and then the court of appeal were both going to look for a way to provide relief. Further, there is a very strong public policy that matters should be decided on the merits, and not on technicalities. Therefore, the case was probably decided correctly, but there was a wrinkle that may have eluded the Court of Appeal.

I
With this week's ruling by the Court of Appeal, companies with in-house counsel could try that approach. An individual defendant who knows about an action and simply decides to ignore it will not be granted relief on a motion to vacate, because there has been no mistake or inadvertence - the party just chose to ignore the action. Gray, the Vice President of G&M, attended two status conferences in the matter, and for whatever reason elected not to pursue a defense. Why is G&M getting a pass from that decision, when an individual defendant would not?

The mea culpa declaration approach of section 473 of the Califorenia Code of Civil Procedure is self-policing in the sense that an attorney will not file a mea culpa declaration unless there has been a real mistake, because he or she is basically admitting to malpractice. With in-house counsel, especially where the counsel is an officer, the corporation could simply instruct the attorney to file the mea culpa declaration, whether or not the attorney agrees there was a mistake, since the attorney will know he is not exposing himself to a malpractice claim.

(Article was printed with the permission of Aaron Morris, Esq. of Morris & Stone, LLP located in Orange County, California)

Continue reading "In House Business Counsel's Purported Negligence May Not be Legally Imputed to the Company" »

What is a limited partnership?

A Limited Partnership ("LP") is an association of one or more general partners together with one or more limited partners to conduct business for profit as co-owners. The most important feature of a LP is that the limited partner enjoys limited liability as long as s/he does not participate in the control of the partnership business. The general partners of the LP are the ones who are responsible for the obligations of the LP.

In a limited partnership, it is the general partner who remains liable for the debts and obligations of the entity. For larger risk exposure, a corporation may be formed to serve as the general partner. A corporate general partner is protected from direct attack by a judgment creditor because the ultimate liability for the debts and obligations rests with the shareholders. By spreading share ownership, individual exposure is considerably reduced. Even without a corporate general partner, risk can be spread by distribution of limited partnership shares. If a judgment creditor obtains a charging order against one partner, the order goes to that partner's share in distributions from the partnership, and not to the entire business.

Continue reading "What is a Limited Business Partnership?" »

We have all seen them--the little supplements that are quietly slipped into our credit card billing statements or are inserted into our patient intake form at our doctor's offices or into our mechanic's auto repair estimate. OK , maybe we haven't actually seen them at all, but whether we have seen them or not, one thing is for sure--the businesses slipping them past us are going to try to use them against us whether we have seen them or not.

We are talking about mandatory binding arbitration ("BMA") clauses and they are serious business. Serious because big businesses are trying to use BMA's to take away one of our most basic rights--the right to have serious disputes heard and decided by real people--a jury of our peers. This constitutional right is just as important and perhaps sometimes, some would argue, even more important than our right to free speech. This is because for some people, the rest of their life may depend on "the judge" of their case being a group of real people who understand what life is really like for the average person, not some wealthy professional judge who makes a living "disposing of legal matters."

Over the last several decades, arbitration clauses have been used to deprive consumers and employees of their constitutional right to jury trial. When possible, it is advisable to avoid signing any agreement containing an arbitration provision if you value these rights. Also known as "contractual arbitration" or "binding arbitration," this form of "dispute resolution" rarely works to the benefit of an middle to low income employee.

Why you ask? The answer is repeat player bias. Repeat player bias refers to the simple fact that employers use the same arbitration company, and sometimes even the very same arbitrator, over and over again. This means that the employee's case is being decided by a company or person that regularly receives income, often perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars on a yearly basis--from the employer whose case is being decided.

As a matter of human nature, how many times would an employer continue to use an arbitrator that continually handed decisions in favor of employees with stiff damages awards and penalties attached to them? Not long.

In contrast, how many times will the employee bringing the claim have occasion to use or recommend that arbitration company or arbitrator in the future? Not many, if ever.

So it is not difficult to understand that this repeat player bias works to the employee's disadvantage, whereas jury trials do not.

This repeat player bias has been directly noted and observed by courts and discussed at length by legal scholars (for example, see (Bingham, Employment Arbitration: The Repeat Player Effect (1997) 1 Employee Rts. & Employment Poly. J. 189; Schwartz, supra, 1997 Wis. L.Rev. at pp. 60-61.); Mercuro v. Sup.Ct. (Countrywide Secur. Corp.) (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 167, 178, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 671, 678).

Quite notably, the California Supreme Court may have even indirectly noted such bias when it observed that damages awards in favor of a plaintiff were generally lower in arbitrations than those in court. Armendariz. v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 111 ["Although it is true that the costs of arbitration are on average smaller than those of litigation, it is also true that amount awarded is on average smaller as well"], citing, Schwartz, Enforcing Small Print to Protect Big Business: Employee and Consumer Rights Claims in an Age of Compelled Arbitration, 1997 Wis. L.Rev. 33, 60-61.)

To be clear, employeesor anyone so situated should seek to avoid binding arbitration, absent a strongly compelling reason to agree to such a forum.

Recent Legislative Developments in the Fight Against Forced Arbitration:

In January 2010, Senator Al Franken successfully pushed through Congress an amendment (the "Franken Amendment") to a defense bill that prohibits certain types of companies who do business with the U.S. government from forcing employees to arbitrate their Title VII sexual harassment claims. The Amendment arose from KBR's attempt to force KBR Employee, Jamie Leigh Jones, to arbitrate her claims against KBR for her alleged sexual harassment, rape and false imprisonment, at the hands of KBR co-employees (she claimed she was gang-raped and then, after complaining, was forced into Binding Arbitration.

Continue reading "Binding Mandatory Arbitration The Abridgement of the Constitutional Right To Trial By Jury" »

All businesses must provide Workers' Compensation coverage for the benefit of their employees who may be injured while on the job. This is a requirement of the law in every state. For most businesses, this requirement is satisfied by purchasing Workers' Compensation insurance, which is available from private insurance companies in most states. In a few states this coverage must be purchased from an agency of the state government.

Often there will be contractual requirements for businesses to have certain types of insurance. For example, the terms of a lease Often there will be contractual requirements for businesses to have certain types of insurance. For example, the terms of a lease for an office or store or factory usually will require the tenant to have certain types of insurance to cover its operations conducted on the leased premises. If a business borrows money, the loan documents often will require that a specified amount of insurance must be maintained to cover the business's property and liability exposures. Leases for office equipment may require insurance to cover potential damage to the equipment. All contracts and leases entered into by a business should be carefully reviewed for insurance requirements. Failure to maintain the required insurance could be a basis for termination of the contract or lease.

Because of frequent contact with the public and because of the specialized work done by many businesses, there is usually a much greater exposure to legal liability arising from the conduct of a business compared with the potential for legal liability from personal activities. It is therefore advisable for most businesses to purchase liability insurance to cover all business related activities, and this insurance should be specifically tailored to the type of business being conducted. This is especially important for professionals, such as health care workers, architects and engineers, who face a greater level of potential legal liability (often called "malpractice") because of the highly specialized and technical nature of their work. In some states, professional liability or "malpractice" insurance may be required as a condition of getting the necessary license to practice the profession in that state.

Continue reading "The Requirement of Business Insurance" »

Beginning a legal action can be stressful, and most people considering hiring a lawyer are already in a stressful situation. You should do your best to prepare for your initial consultation, to get the most out of the process. An initial consultation can be more than just a quick meeting; it can help you plan your strategy, see potential hazards, and save you further stress during the legal process.

What to Bring

The most important thing to bring is a pen and paper. Even if you have studied your legal situation, you may learn many things during the initial consultation. An attorney can be an invaluable resource: they can ask questions that help you see potential benefits and hazards during the legal process, and offer helpful advice. Be prepared to write down any advice the attorney provides, and to note any questions the attorney will need to have answered in order to help you.

When you contact an attorney to schedule an initial consultation, ask them what information they want you to bring. For example, a bankruptcy attorney may want to see your financial information and a list of your debts. Write down a list of what the attorney requests and prepare all of these documents before your consultation. If you do not know what the attorney would like you to bring, put together a folder of documents. Bring any bills, notices, e-mails, or other communications and documents that are relevant to your legal question.

How to Prepare for Your Consultation

Before your consultation, you should write down any questions you might have. Do not hesitate to ask what you might think is a "stupid" question. Attorneys do not expect the layperson to have a thorough understanding of legal issues, and a good attorney will be eager for you to understand what you should expect and how to participate in the legal process. Remember: understanding your legal action can save you time and money and prevent complications.

Write down a timeline of the situation that has caused you to seek an attorney's help. If you are facing a foreclosure, write down a timeline of missed payments and any communications with your lender. If you are considering a divorce, note any separations, previous legal proceedings, and the events that led to your decision.

Don't Hold Back

Anything you discuss with an attorney during an initial consultation is confidential. Do not hold back from asking or answering questions. If you think information is important, don't keep it to yourself. Any information that you think is relevant can help an attorney give you the best possible advice. Attorneys face severe penalties for revealing anything said to them during a consultation. You should not be afraid to give an attorney every fact and trust them to act on your behalf.

Continue reading "The Initial Attorney-Client Consultation With the Business Attorney: What To Look For" »

Litigation is not only a nuisance for a business; it can also lead to a business's demise. The uncertainty of pending litigation can make existing and potential investors nervous and unwilling to provide the resources necessary for the business to succeed. The damage may be done even if the business is ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing. Of course, if the business is found liable for wrongdoing during litigation then the outcome can be even worse. In addition to losing investor confidence, and possibly good will from customers, the business may be required to pay damages that significantly harm its bottom line. Therefore, it is important for businesses to take precautions to prevent litigation whenever possible says California Business Attorney Steven C. Peck.

It is possible to prevent many types of potential litigation simply by implementing good business practices. There are many different types of litigation that can face a company but if the following policies and records are in good order than many cases can be averted. For example:

· Good Financial Record Keeping: this is essential to any business. You need to have complete financial records that are properly updated and maintained, and that reflect all of your profits, expenses, and other financial transactions. These records can help you avoid litigation on tax issues, investor issues and other important matters.
· Written Policies and Procedures: businesses should have written employment policies and procedures that ensure that similarly situated employees are treated fairly in order to prevent employment related litigation.
Personnel Files: records of employee reviews and employee discipline should be maintained so that any allegation of discriminatory dismissals or other improper employment allegations can be properly defended.
It is important to consult appropriate experts before developing and when implementing business record keeping policies and procedures. For example, an accountant or tax professional can help you set up your financial record keeping system and periodically review it to make sure that it is being implemented correctly. Similarly, an employment lawyer can help you develop nondiscriminatory employment procedures and make sure that any adverse employment actions that you take are done in accordance with established policy and properly documented in personnel files.
Business recording keeping policies and procedures will not provide complete immunity to litigation for businesses but they can greatly reduce a business's likelihood of being sued. They can also be helpful if a business is sued and may provide for a quick dismissal or settlement since it is easy to obtain and interpret the information regarding wrongdoing.
While the best time to start keeping and implementing good records, policies and procedures is when you start your business, it is never too late to implement good practices. You can protect yourself against the threat of future litigation by implementing good financial record keeping systems, establishing employment policies and procedures, and maintaining complete personnel files at any time. Although these steps will significantly reduce, not eliminate, the threat of litigation, you can sleep well at night knowing that if you are sued that you have the necessary documentation to properly defend your business.

Continue reading "Good Business Practices May Help Stave Off Potential Litigation" »

Here are the three best ways to develop a relationship with a community lender:

1. Make a good first impression. Small lenders take referrals from the business owner's lawyer or CPA very serious, especially if that professional has previously made referrals to the lender that resulted in a strong relationship. Once the initial appointment is set up, owners should treat it as they would the first day of school by bringing in as much documentation--including financial statements and tax returns--as possible to demonstrate eagerness and preparedness. Also, they should come with a list of questions and a detailed business plan that illustrates both how lending assistance will propel the business and how the business will repay the debt.

."When meeting for the first time, you have to articulate what you need. I'm not a mind reader," says Don Kidd, president of Western Commerce Bank in Carlsbad, N.M. "Run us over with information. A lot of small-business people are reluctant to provide information, but we need it even if it is bad. There should be no secrets."

2. Woo the bank. From that introductory point, business owners need to work diligently to cultivate the relationship. Many lenders will ask to visit the business to better understand its operations, but owners should take the initiative to extend the invitation early in the process.

Also, consider giving the bank more business. "More and more, banks don't want you to just open a checking account and then give you a loan," says Mr. Carlson, who points to online banking, remote deposit capture and credit cards as services that business owners can use. "The bank makes money on all those things, but also, it shows more commitment on the borrower's side. In banking, if you sell one service, [customers] can leave easily. With six services, they will stick with you."

3. Stay current. Most banks want financial information on a regular--as often as a biweekly--basis so that they are abreast of how the company is performing. They also want to personally check in to discuss the direction of the company and the challenges it may be facing. "When the business owner can't provide current financial information, that's a red flag," says California Business Attorney Steven C. Peck.

This isn't just to make sure the loan products are in line with what the business can repay. It's also so that the lending managers can act in an advisory role to stave off any bumps in the road before they happen. "The best relationships are when the accountant and the banker and the business lawyer work together with the owner in a consulting relationship," "What most bankers have seen in the long run that if you work with that trifecta, the result is a more successful business."

Continue reading "Starting a Successful Business Banking Relationship" »

Some people who start their own business think they can save money by not having a business lawyer on hand. This is not a good practice to keep because if anything goes wrong and you are forced into a situation that requires expertise in the law you will be rushed into making a decision on a lawyer that could cost you more money.

What a business lawyer job is, is to know all the legalities in owning and operating a business. This means they will know all the particular laws for your state and can assist you in making the right decisions for your business.

How early should you get a lawyer? You should find a lawyer that you are comfortable talking with as early into your business venture as you can. Having a lawyer that you know and can trust will give you confidence should anything arise that you would need a lawyer for.

A business minded lawyer is going to keep in mind the size of your business, how to be most cost effective to you and the complexity of timing issues. A good business minded lawyer will be able to help you negotiate deal points, recommend different structure that will better serve you and help you set up a better plan for your business.

Your lawyer should be available to you at any time. If at any time you do not feel your lawyer is working for you, you should find a new lawyer. If your lawyer or your lawyers staff does not return your calls they are not doing their job. Your lawyer should provide you with a copy of all documents prepared by him.

It could be a red flag if your lawyer is not completely forthright with all documents he or she has prepared for you. Your lawyer should always be prompt with their actions and should do what they say they are going to do. You should also receive a rough time line of when your lawyer will do certain things.

There are a few questions you should ask your lawyer before retaining him or her, a few of the main ones are:
How long have you been practicing law?
Have you represented companies like mine?
How do you charge legal fees, and exactly what expenses am I charged for?
What experience do you have with tax matters?
What advice do you give to lessen the chance of litigation?

Continue reading "The Business of Hiring a Business Attorney" »