Ned talks by Robert Christie

DO THE RIGHT THING

FEDERATION OF DEFENSE AND CORPORATE COUNSEL

2016 WINTER MEETING HOTEL DEL CORONADO CORONADO, CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 28-MARCH 4, 2016

Authored by: ELIZABETH F. LORELL SHALEEMAR A. DE LOS REYES Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani Florham Park, New Jersey Written in conjunction with the Plenary Session on Wednesday, March 2, 2016 “NED Talks”

This Paper has been prepared for general information and is not intended to be relied upon as legal advice.

Plenary Session Presenters Wednesday, March 2, 2016

NED TALKS 10:05 a.m. â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 11:00 a.m.

Rear Admiral Ray Smith USN (Ret.) San Diego, California

Victor R. Anderson, III Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Los Angeles, California

Robert A. Biggs, III Biggs Ingram & Solop, PLLC Jackson, Mississippi

Lauren S. Curtis Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP St. Petersburg, Florida

Elizabeth F. Lorell Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani Florham Park, New Jersey

TABLE OF CONTENTS FORWARD .................................................................................................................................... 1 I.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2

II.

PRINCIPLES OF LEGAL ETHICS ............................................................................... 3

III.

INTEGRITY .......................................................................................................... 3

DETERMINATION .............................................................................................. 5

BALANCE .............................................................................................................. 7

LEADERSHIP ....................................................................................................... 9

HOPE .................................................................................................................... 11

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 13

FORWARD I remember the exact moment I decided to be a lawyer. I was six years old and with my Dad in New York City. At the time, my perception of lawyers was mainly through fictional characters like Atticus Finch and Perry Mason -- all of whom seemed to make a positive difference in the lives of many. My Dad’s response to my exclaiming that “I want to be a lawyer when I grow up” was as I always remember his advice to be: encouraging, inspirational and pivotal in my decision. He explained that throughout history, there had been many brave lawyers who did monumental things but that their decisions at times were at their own personal and professional detriment. He then told me about John Adams and his agonizing choice in 1770 to represent the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre. He continued that William Shakespeare’s quote, “The first thing we do, is to kill all the lawyers”, actually was intended as praise to a lawyer’s role in preventing chaos and tyranny. My Dad believed that lawyers had a tremendous impact, not just on our justice system, but on our political system, and that is what made America “great” and “profoundly different” from any other country in the world. Listening to my Father, I wondered aloud, “Who wouldn’t want to be a lawyer?” As the years have gone (flown?) by, my parents, friends and family have always been incredibly supportive of my decision to be a lawyer and of my career. I have been fortunate to work in two wonderful firms that have been led by ethically minded, strong, caring, intelligent, hard working and motivating managing partners.1 And since 2005, I have been a member of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel, whose ranks are truly filled with the finest, highly principled and friendliest lawyers that I have ever met. It is through my experiences with these individuals and my colleagues that I wake up everyday inspired by my profession and eternally grateful to be a lawyer in the “greatest” country in the world! I extend a heartfelt thanks to all. Elizabeth Lorell

Frank Lloyd was the Managing Partner of Harwood Lloyd, LLC in Hackensack, NJ, during the time I began working as a young associate and made it to partner. My current firm, Gordon & Rees, is led by firm wide Managing Partner, Dion Cominos, who like Frank Lloyd, has a great temperament, leads by example and is a true role model to all.

INTRODUCTION “In a moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing.” ~ Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States~ As attorneys, we often hear the term “ethics” in the punchline of a “lawyer joke”. The

cultural perception of our industry is influenced by negative stereotypes and fictional portrayals of attorneys as ruthless, self-interested, immoral and unethical. And while not all attorneys may be upstanding citizens, in reality our responsibilities as advocates for our clients and representatives of the judicial system are steeped in the highest standards of ethical conduct, to which we are duty bound to adhere to the best of our abilities. In 1983, the American Bar Association (“ABA”) promulgated the Model Rules of Professional Conduct2 (“Model Rules” or “RPC”), which prescribe baseline standards of legal ethics and professional responsibility for attorneys in this country. To date, these rules have been adopted in whole or in part by 49 states3, and are continuously reviewed and amended as the primary guidelines for ethical conduct in the legal profession. The Model Rules provide an ethical code for eight general areas relating to the practice of law. They direct attorneys on proper conduct with clients, as counselors and as advocates.

They also assess attorneys’

responsibilities in dealing with non-client third parties, as members of law firms and associations, in participating in public service, and in providing information about legal services. Finally, the RPC specifically addresses attorneys’ duty to maintain integrity in the practice of law.

The most current version of the Model Rules is available on the American Bar Association website at http://www.americanbar.org. 3 California is the only state that has not adopted the Model Rules. Rather, it has its own ethical guidelines, provided in the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

Embodied within these rules of ethical responsibility, both explicitly and implied, are the principles of integrity, determination, balance, leadership and hope. When faced with ethical dilemmas in our professional lives, keeping these ideals at the forefront of our practice of law will guide us down the right path, assist us in making difficult ethical decisions, allow us to “lead by example” and in the end, to “do the right thing.” II.

PRINCIPLES OF LEGAL ETHICS A. INTEGRITY

“Integrity is not a conditional word. It doesn’t blow in the wind or change with the weather. It is your inner image of yourself, and if you look in there and see a man who won’t cheat, then you know he never will.” ~ John MacDonald, American Author~ Integrity is an innate sense of honesty that serves as the beacon for a person’s moral compass. While attorneys have an obligation to abide by a code of ethical conduct, sometimes we might find ourselves in a situation that will test our ethical resolve.

Under these

circumstances, it is our integrity that will guide us toward the proper course of action. Even if an attorney does her job to the utmost ethical standards, she may still find herself in a position in which she must make a judgment call between conflicting rules of professional conduct. Here is an example of such a quandary that the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics4 was faced with: What is the duty of an attorney who during a subsequent representation uncovers incontrovertible proof that a favorable civil judgment obtained during a previous representation was based upon her client’s perjury5? In this scenario, despite the attorney’s adherence to her legal duties, she was faced with an ethical issue as a result of her client’s deception.

The Model Code of Professional

The Advisory Committee, established in 1963, responds to inquiries concerning the proper conduct of the legal profession under the RPC or the New Jersey Court Rules. See New Jersey Court Rule 1:19. 5 New Jersey Advisory Comm. on Professional Ethics, Op. 227, 95 N.J.L.J. 65 (1972).

Responsibility6, predecessor to the RPC, provided ethical guidelines for the legal profession until 1983, and each rule included ethical considerations (“EC”) as well as specific disciplinary rules (“DR”). Under DR 4-1017, a fundamental duty of legal representation is that an attorney must protect the secrets and confidences of his client. However, these circumstances, involving a client’s perjury, “also [bring] into play a conflicting duty to call upon [an attorney’s] client to rectify a fraud perpetrated upon another person or tribunal pursuant to the provisions of DR 7102.”8 Therefore, the attorney obviously was faced with reconciling “these two competing principles of ethical responsibility.”9 The inquiry essentially focused on “which of the two competing policies should prevail – the one calling for full disclosure of the facts so that justice might be done, or the other demanding secrecy as between the attorney and [their] client”?10 Ultimately, provisions of DR 7-10211 override an attorney’s protection of [their] client. If, after requesting the client to rectify the fraud and the client refuses, it is incumbent upon the attorney to take action and notify the interested parties, as well as remove [her]self from representation.12 At all times, attorneys must rely upon their own moral compass to guide their actions in the face of conflicting ethical responsibilities. An attorney in the above situation could have easily ignored or covered up her client’s past fraud and deceit in order to keep the client’s business or otherwise serve her own benefit. However, this lawyer, guided by her own high

From 1969 to 1983, legal ethics were governed by the Model Code of Professional Responsibility (“Code”). The Code was structured into nine categories or “canons,” and under each were ethical considerations and disciplinary rules. In 1983, the Code was replaced by the RPC. However, the provisions of the Code were absorbed into the guidelines of the RPC, and each portion of the Code has an analogous section or sections in the Model Rules. 7 Model Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 4, DR 4-101(B), the provisions of which can now be found in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 1.6, 1.8 and 1.9. 8 New Jersey Advisory Comm. on Professional Ethics, Op. 227, 95 N.J.L.J. 65 (1972). 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Analogous provisions to DR 7-102 can be found throughout the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. 12 Model Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 7, DR 7-102.

ethical standards, sought guidance as to how to resolve a real ethical dilemma. Not easy to do, but clearly the right thing to do. B. DETERMINATION “Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense.” ~ Winston Churchill, Nobel Laureate and Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom~ Being an attorney is not an easy endeavor. While attempting to maintain our integrity, we are constantly at odds with one another, arguing opposite sides and trying to ultimately “win”, whether it be by a favorable contract provision, judge’s order, jury verdict or advantageous settlement. In the face of adversity, one of our primary duties is to zealously advocate for our client. In the RPC’s outline of a lawyer’s responsibilities13, our role as an advocate is to “zealously [assert] the client's position under the rules of the adversary system” and we are obligated to “zealously [] protect and pursue a client's legitimate interests, within the bounds of the law.” Yet always there are ethical considerations to take into account, like the instance of a client’s known deceit.

But if you as an attorney do everything right, and advocating for your truthful,

respectable client still fails, when is it ethical to throw in the towel? Part of being a zealous advocate is understanding that in this highly adversarial profession, giving up at the first sign of defeat is not an option. Rather, RPC Rule 1.3 ethically obligates us to act with reasonable diligence when representing a client. If every attorney stopped advocating for his client each time he lost a negotiation or a motion or a trial, the legal profession could not function properly.

Model Rules of Professional Conduct Preamble

In 1975, if the attorney14 for Joseph and Julia Quinlan had decided to stop zealously advocating for his clients after the first perceived sign of failure, not only would the lives of the Quinlans be very different, but the laws of New Jersey would not be as we know them today. In April of that year, 21-year old Karen Ann Quinlan attended a party after which she was found unresponsive for unknown reasons.15 She was in a coma, and her parents Joseph and Julia were told that she was in a chronic and persistent “vegetative” state with an extremely poor prognosis.16 Being Roman Catholics, the Quinlans did not want their daughter to be kept alive by extraordinary means. They sought termination of life support measures for their daughter, namely the respirator, which the hospital refused. A legal battle ensued and the Superior Court of New Jersey refused to allow the Quinlans to terminate life support, equating this action to homicide under New Jersey law.17 However, the Quinlan’s attorney, also a Roman Catholic, believed that his clients were morally correct, and he continued to pursue their case despite having the Superior Court rule against him. He appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and as a result of the Court’s decision on appeal, Karen Ann Quinlan was removed from her respirator in 1976. The Quinlan’s attorney was able to win a legal battle for his clients that originally seemed futile. Through his determination to zealously advocate for his clients as directed by the ethical rules, he was able to overcome a lower court decision that conflicted with his and his clients’ moral and religious beliefs. It was his steadfast determination and resolve in fighting for what he believed was the right thing that led to his appeal and ultimate victory in the New Jersey’s highest Court. This case completely changed the scheme of the “right to die” cases, not only in 14

The Quinlans were represented by Paul W. Armstrong, who also served as a Judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey from 2000 until his retirement in 2015. 15 In the matter of Karen Quinlan, an Alleged Incompetent, 70 N.J. 10 (1976). 16 Id. at 25-26. 17 In the matter of Karen Quinlan, an Alleged Incompetent, 137 N.J.Super. 227; 261-262 (Ch. Div. 1975).

New Jersey, but across the country as well, all because of an attorney’s determination to do the right thing. C. BALANCE “It’s not personal…It’s strictly business.” ~ Michael Corleone, “The Godfather”~ In attempting to follow the ethical rules while zealously advocating for our clients, as attorneys our job inevitably becomes the focus of our entire lives. The question then becomes: is it even possible to separate the two? Can your work life as an attorney be strictly business without any impact on your personal life? Or vice versa? In reality, we do not live separate work lives and personal lives. We do not stop being attorneys when we leave the office, nor do we stop being mothers, fathers, daughters, brothers, or friends when we go to work. The different parts of our lives are intertwined and yet, it is our ethical responsibility to keep a balance between our personal lives and our lives as practitioners of the law. In our society today, we cannot seem to escape our computers or smartphones, and much of our time is spent browsing social media sites: “tweeting” about a trending topic, commenting on a friend’s Facebook rant, posting a filtered photo on Instagram, connecting with someone you may know on LinkedIn. But when we take these actions on social media, do we always take into account our ethical obligations as attorneys? So often when we attempt to separate work and personal life rather than balance the two, we inadvertently forget that our actions can affect both sides of our lives. There are several provisions in the Model Rules that apply to social media activity. Unfortunately, with the ease of using social media, it does not always lead to all lawyers writing like attorneys. Even if they are, they may not realize that what they post on social media may

violate ethical standards.18 For example, RPC Rule 4.1 prohibits making false statements of material fact or law to a third person. RPC Rule 7.1 prohibits an attorney from making a false or misleading communication about herself or her services, and Rule 7.4 specifically prohibits an attorney from stating or implying that he or she is a specialist in a particular field of law. An ethical issue when using social media can arise when filling out an attorney’s “profile” automatically lists them as an “expert” or “specialist” in the law simply by virtue of being a lawyer.

This is in violation of the above RPC standards regarding false statements and

implications of specialties or expertise. In the end, attorneys must be mindful of automatic social media platforms that may inadvertently cause them to run afoul of ethical rules. Another example of attempting to balance private life with life as an attorney in the context of social media comes into play under the rules governing privileged and confidential information.

The RPC imposes a duty on attorneys to protect privileged and confidential

information of current, former and potential clients.19 As we all know, attorneys and clients do not always get along. And sometimes at the end of a difficult day, when lawyers go home and log onto social media, they may sometimes slip and fail to remember that their legal ethical responsibilities continue “after hours”, even when writing a Facebook post or blog entry. It is under these scenarios that lawyers may inadvertently fail to adhere to the RPC’s, while engaging in disparaging remarks or otherwise revealing confidential information about an unnamed or unidentified client or colleague. In the delicate balance of our personal versus professional lives, it is paramount that lawyers continually adhere to their ethical duties and remember that online posts might, may and can affect our professional relationships.

For more information, see Christina Vassiliou Harvey, Mac R. McCoy and Brook Sneath, 10 Tips for Avoiding Ethical Lapses When Using Social Media, Business Law Today, January 2014. 19 See Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 1.6, 1.9, and 1.18 (2013).

In 2011, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin found that a lawyer was in violation of her duties as a member of the State Bar of Wisconsin.20 The lawyer, also a member of the Illinois State Bar, had maintained a public blog that “contained confidential information about her clients and derogatory comments about judges. The blog had information sufficient to identify those clients and judges using public sources.”21 As a result, due to her violation of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, the Court suspended the attorney’s license to practice law in the State of Wisconsin.22 Maintaining a balance between professional and personal life is a difficult task, especially for attorneys who spend a significant part of their time working, even when at home. In this age of social media, it is important to remember that complete separation of professional and personal life is not always possible. Balance of the two sides is the best way to prevent actions in personal life from having negative ethical consequences in professional life. Remember, when in doubt, do not “type” it out. D. LEADERSHIP “Leadership is unlocking people’s potential to become better.” ~ Bill Bradley, Member of the NBA Hall of Fame and Former United States Senator~ An attorney in a leadership role is inherently required to take on additional ethical responsibilities, because that attorney’s conduct not only directly affects clients, but also those in subordinate positions who look to their leader as an example. While the RPC provides ethical guidelines for all attorneys, they also specifically address the duties of attorneys in a supervisory or managerial position. Partners and supervisors must adhere to ethical standards as individual attorneys, but they are also tasked with making reasonable efforts to ensure that lawyers in a 20

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kristine A. Peshek, Attorney at Law, 798 N.W.2d 879 (WI 2011). Id. 22 The attorney was also suspended in the State of Illinois, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision was to impose reciprocal discipline for her ethical violations. Id. 21

subordinate position conform to the RPC and that the firm in which they work has measures in effect to ensure compliance of those subordinates.23 We often hear the idiom “lead by example.” In other words, talk the talk, walk the walk. Nevertheless, sometimes in positions of leadership, attorneys are blinded by their power and position and forget or disregard their duty to uphold the ethical standards of the legal profession. Some may even take the approach of “do as I say, not as I do.” But how are subordinate attorneys supposed to adhere to ethical standards if their leaders fail to do the same? Failure as an ethical attorney is a failure of leadership, which directly violates the rules of professional conduct. In 2012, the global law firm of Dewey & Leboeuf, which had been formed as the result of a merger of two firms founded in the early 1900s, filed for bankruptcy.24 As the firm began to crumble under the weight of bankruptcy proceedings, several former leaders of the firm were indicted for 106 criminal counts, including grand larceny and securities fraud.25 Not only were these firm leaders alleged to have participated in criminal conduct, their conduct, if true, was in clear violation of their ethical responsibilities. Attorneys in positions of leadership, such as partners, carry high ethical responsibilities because their actions directly affect their subordinates. Consider the associates left behind when a firm’s management is charged with serious criminal charges, directly related to their conduct in managing a firm. Or what about lawyers who worked in the White House Counsel’s office during the Watergate years? What sort of impressions do these types of scenarios leave on a young lawyer and ultimately, what impact do they have on their careers? Make no mistake about 23

Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 5.1 (a) and (b) (2013). In re Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, Debtor, 478 B.R. 627 (SDNY 2012). 25 On October 19, 2015, a mistrial was declared on the criminal charges against Dewey & LeBoeuf’s former leaders. Matthew Goldstein, Mistrial Is Declared In Dewey & LeBoeuf Case, N.Y. Times, Oct. 19, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/business/dealbook/mistrial-is-declared-indewey-leboeuf-case.html. 24

it: all lawyers must adhere to ethical standards to protect not only their clients, but also those whom they lead, and to ensure their subordinates conform to their ethical responsibilities. This, simply stated, is a responsibility that distinguishes our profession from all others, bar none, for a leader’s lasting value is measured by the trust they engender, the respect they earn and the positive legacy they leave behind. E. HOPE “Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.” ~ Stephen King, Author of “The Shawshank Redemption”~ In maintaining integrity, staying determined, keeping a proper balance, and providing leadership to others, being an attorney is truly a demanding and high-stress job. Sadly, more often than we would prefer, many attorneys turn to drugs or alcohol to cope with the daily pressures of being an active practitioner of the law.

In examining the legal ethical

responsibilities of attorneys, specific rules addressing substance abuse are conspicuously absent. It does not appear that the act of substance abuse in and of itself violates a specific ethical rule. However, violations clearly are implied when abuse or dependency on drugs or alcohol affects an attorney’s ability to perform his duties. RPC Rule 1.1 requires attorneys to provide competent representation to a client, and Rule 1.16(a)(2) specifically prohibits an attorney from representing a client if “the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client.” Substance abuse, which affects both body and mind, can lead to an attorney’s violation of these rules of professional conduct. When attorneys find themselves before the ethics board for violations of the RPC due to abuse of drugs or alcohol, it is easy for hope to be lost. Once disciplinary action is taken and penalties are imposed, any attorney may believe that his career is no longer salvageable and his professional life is essentially ruined. Sometimes we forget that simply possessing a license to

practice law does not immunize us from the perils of human nature. When it does, hope is a good thing, as ethics violations that result of substance abuse do not necessarily have to mean the end of a career. In Baker v. The State Bar of California26, the court addressed the State Barâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recommendation for disbarment of an attorney. In the early 1980s, this lawyer developed an alcohol and cocaine dependency, which led to his misappropriation of client funds, failure to advocate on his clientsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; behalf and other willful violations of the California Business and Professions Code.27 He also violated several ethical rules in the State of California. But after being hospitalized, the attorney took steps to turn his life around, including participating in drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs, maintaining sobriety for several years, resuming his law practice without incident, and even volunteering as a municipal court judge.28 Although the State Bar had recommended disbarment of this lawyer for his past violations due to substance abuse, he took actions to address his addiction and fought the recommendation in the hope of continuing his recovery and continuing his practice of law. The court ultimately found that disbarment of this lawyer was unwarranted. 29 Although substance abuse led to significant ethical transgressions in his practice of law, the attorney did not allow his past drug and alcohol induced misdeeds to destroy his legal career. Rather, he had hope that taking steps toward recovery would absolve him of those offenses and his efforts would allow him another chance at being an advocate for his clients and a representative of the judicial system.

John David Baker v. The State Bar of California, 49 Cal.3d 804 (CA 1989). Id. 28 Id. at 819-21. 29 Id. at 823. 27

Not all attorneys similarly situated possess the same drive or are motivated by the same hope as the lawyer described above. Because misuse of drugs and alcohol is a recognized concern within the legal community, all 50 states have Lawyer Assistance Programs, each of which are supported by the ABA.30 One or more programs in each state are available to attorneys to provide services that address a variety of personal problems plaguing the legal profession including substance abuse and dependencies, depression, and mental and emotional health issues. In a job that constantly tests our abilities as virtuous professionals against the reality of our human nature, any ethical missteps that may occur along our path always carry the promise of hope for redemption. Because hope never dies. III.

CONCLUSION Doing what is right is not always easy. It may not even seem beneficial to you personally

or to your practice as an attorney, but is mandated by ethical rules that we all, as lawyers, are governed by. Our obligation and responsibility to maintain and uphold our profession’s ethical standards is never ending. It is through integrity, determination, leadership, balance and hope that, in trying moments of decision throughout a lawyer’s career, one needs to remember that the best course of action is to always “do the right thing.” Think about all the lawyers who have come before us: Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Clarence Darrow – just to name a few. We are in good company. Let’s keep it that way.

The Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs is an ongoing commission of the American Bar Association that seeks to educate the legal profession about problems concerning alcoholism, chemical dependencies, depression, and other emotional and health issues, and to assist and support bar associations and lawyer assistance programs to develop effective solutions for recovery. For more information, and for a listing of all Lawyer Assistance Programs in each state, please visit http://www.americanbar.org/groups/lawyer_assistance.html.

AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES Elizabeth Lorell, is a partner in the Florham Park, New Jersey office of Gordon & Rees, which is a national firm with 37 offices throughout the country. She is a partner in the Employment, Insurance and Professional Liability Defense Practice Groups and handles complex litigation. Ms. Lorell assists employers and their insurance carriers in the resolution of difficult employment issues. She also defends employers and senior personnel against claims of harassment, discrimination, hostile work environment, whistleblower reprisals and other misconduct including alleged violations of wage-and-hour statutes. She handles ERISA litigation and has successfully defended fiduciaries against breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims. Ms. Lorell has been involved in the forefront of major insurance coverage litigation for over 20 years, exemplified by the nationally famous Love Canal environmental coverage case. She has also litigated novel issues in coverage litigation such as those presented in the cases brought by the insurance carriers against the NFL and by a large national securities brokerage firm to cover the cost of past settlements with thousands of female employees for alleged historical employment discrimination. Ms. Lorell also handles litigation and counsels national insurers on unique and complex coverage issues stemming from director and officers, errors and omissions, title, and first party/third party insurance policy disputes including claims of bad faith. Ms. Lorell also defends lawyers, accountants, insurance brokers, title agents, title companies, architects, engineers, doctors and real estate agents on serious malpractice and related claims. She has a close working knowledge of each profession and she has a reputation for successfully defending these matters with zeal and sensitivity. Ms. Lorell is a Senior Director of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel, a fellow in the Litigation Counsel of America and for the last three years, has been named one of the top 100 lawyers in New Jersey and one of the top fifty women lawyers by New Jersey’s Law & Politics Magazine. In 2011, Ms. Lorell was awarded the John Alan Appleman Award for her work as Chair of the FDCC’s Employment Section. The Appleman Award honors the Substantive Law Section Chair who has made the most outstanding contribution to the advancement of the FDCC’s educational goals through the work of their Section. Ms. Lorell is a published author and in addition to her New Jersey law license, is licensed to practice law in New York, Pennsylvania and Colorado, the later of which stems from her graduation from the University of Denver Law School.

Shaleemar “Lee” A. de los Reyes is an associate in the Florham Park office of Gordon & Rees, a firm with more than 680 attorneys nationwide. Her practice focuses on civil litigation, and she handles a wide range of matters in practice areas including complex commercial litigation, labor and employment, and insurance defense. Ms. de los Reyes also has extensive experience in public entity defense, medical malpractice defense, real estate litigation and transactions, wills and estates, municipal court, and criminal law. Early in her legal career, Ms. de los Reyes served as a judicial law clerk in the Superior Court of New Jersey for the Honorable Paul W. Armstrong. She was involved in drafting opinions of the court and mediating small claims matters. Significantly, she assisted the Chairman of the New Jersey Drug Court Judge’s Committee in implementing a pilot program in compliance with New Jersey’s newly revised Drug Court legislation. Ms. de los Reyes received her Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Notre Dame and her law degree in her hometown from the University of San Diego School of Law. While in law school, she worked as a judicial intern for the Superior Court of California, volunteered in the domestic violence clinic, and served the Vice Chair of the Diversity Committee. She was also awarded the Wiley W. Manuel Certificate for Pro Bono Legal Services and studied at the University of San Diego’s Institute on International and Comparative Law in Florence, Italy. In addition to New Jersey, Ms. de los Reyes is licensed to practice law in California (voluntary inactive status) and New York. Aside from being an attorney, Ms. de los Reyes volunteers her time as the Media Relations Chair for the Northern New Jersey Affiliate of the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network.

/26121258v.1