Attorney Journal, Orange County, Volume 127 by Attorney Journals

ORANGE COUNTY

Volume 127, 2016 • $6.95

3 Steps to Business Development Simplicity

Mike O’Horo

How to Have A Successful Retreat: Walk on Water

Bob Denney

Effective Strategies to Gain More Online Reviews

Jonathan Goudy Key Success Factors to Achieve Your Career Goals

Brian Tracy

Specific Facts Build Powerful Marketing Arguments

Trey Ryder

McIntyre’s Civil Alert Organized Succinct Summaries

Monty A. McIntyre

PROFESSIONAL PROFILE OF THE MONTH

Eric Traut

Traut Firm, Santa Ana First Things First

Attorney of the Month

Howard M. Privette Greenberg Gross LLP The Tenacious Pursuit of Excellence

Keller/Anderle LLP BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS

Specialization matters. Having represented more law firms over the last 25 years than any other broker in the region, no one understands their real estate needs better than I do. — JASON HUGHES President & CEO, Hughes Marino

ORANGE COUNTY CORPORATE REAL ESTATE ADVISORS

At Hughes Marino we only represent tenants and buyers – never landlords – so we never have a conflict of interest. Our only fiduciary duty is to our client, the tenant, and we are wholly committed to protecting their interests. If you are not happy with your service or results, then we will give you our commission. Guaranteed. (949) 333-3111 | hughesmarino.com

ORANGE COUNTY LOS ANGELES SAN FRANCISCO SILICON VALLEY SAN DIEGO

2016 EDITION—NO.127

TABLE OF CONTENTS 6 How to Have A Successful Retreat: Walk on Water by Bob Denney

8 3 Steps to Business Development Simplicity by Mike O’ Horo

10 Key Success Factors to Achieve Your Career Goals EXECUTIVE PUBLISHER Brian Topor EDITOR Wendy Price CREATIVE SERVICES Skidmutro Creative Partners CIRCULATION Angela Watson PHOTOGRAPHY Chris Griffiths STAFF WRITERS Jennifer Hadley Bridget Brookman Karen Gorden

by Brian Tracy

ATTORNEY OF THE MONTH

16 Howard M. Privette Greenberg Gross LLP, Costa Mesa The Tenacious Pursuit of Excellence

by Karen Gorden

PROFESSIONAL PROFILE OF THE MONTH

22 Eric Traut Traut Firm, Santa Ana First Things First 26 McIntyre’s Civil Alert Organized Succinct Summaries

WEBMASTER Mariusz Opalka

by Monty A. McIntyre

28 Effective Strategies to Gain More Online Reviews

ADVERTISING INQUIRIES info@AttorneyJournal.us

by Jonathan Goudy

30 Specific Facts Build Powerful Marketing Arguments

SUBMIT AN ARTICLE Editorial@AttorneyJournal.us

ADDRESS CHANGES Address corrections can be made via fax, email or postal mail.

by Jennifer Hadley

CONTRIBUTING EDITORIALISTS Monty McIntyre Bob Denney Mike O’Horo Jonathan Goudy Trey Ryder Brian Tracy

OFFICE 30211 Avenida De Las Banderas Suite 200 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 www.AttorneyJournal.us

12 COMMUNITYnews

by Trey Ryder

Editorial material appears in Attorney Journal as an informational service for readers. Article contents are the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of Attorney Journal. Attorney Journal makes every effort to publish credible, responsible advertisements. Inclusion of product advertisements or announcements does not imply endorsement. Attorney Journal is a trademark of Sticky Media, LLC. Not affiliated with any other trade publication or association. Copyright 2016 by Sticky Media, LLC. All rights reserved. Contents may not be reproduced without written permission from Sticky Media, LLC. Printed in the USA

COURT REPORTING ACCESS WHEREVER YOU GO Easily schedule a court reporter and access your deposition transcripts & exhibits using our mobile app.

DEPOSITION SERVICES •Certified Court Reporters •Court-Appointed Official Reporters •Certified Legal Interpreters •24/7, Last Minute Scheduling •Nationwide Deposition Coverage •Deposition Suites, Conference Centers •Realtime Depositions •Electronic Transcripts •Electronic Transcript CD •Litigation Support Software Integration •Complete Case Management

VIDEO SERVICES •Certified Legal Videographers •Video Conferencing •Video Deposition Streaming •Video Transcript Synchronization •Digital Deposition Streaming •Video Editing Tools ONLINE & MOBILE SERVICES •Online Deposition Scheduling •Online Document Repository •Jilio-Ryan Mobile App •Mobile Transcripts •Productivity Enhancing Transcript Tools

DOWNLOAD OUR FREE APP TODAY!

JILIO-RYAN COURT REPORTERS

W W W. J I L I O R YA N . C O M

800.454.1230

How to Have a Successful Retreat: Walk on Water

by Bob Denney

lanning and conducting a successful retreat is like walking on water—it’s a lot easier if you know where the rocks are. The best way to find the rocks is to follow certain guidelines. Some of them apply to every retreat, regardless of the firm. Others vary, depending on the purpose of the retreat and the culture and goals of the firm.

Some of the Reasons for Holding a Retreat • To develop or approve a strategic plan. This is serious business.

• To discuss a major issue—such as a possible merger or

new compensation plan—or to launch a new marketing or business development program. This is also serious business.

• Begin planning far in advance; three months is the bare

minimum. Size is a factor here. A retreat for 200 people requires considerably more planning than a retreat for ten.

• Once firm management has decided on the purpose and

objective of the retreat, appoint a Retreat Committee and let them plan the retreat.

• The objective will determine who should attend all or at least part of the retreat: partners only, all lawyers, administrative managers, support staff? In any event, be certain that all firm leaders attend.

• Invite input, by questionnaire or interview, from those who will attend, on what they feel should be on the agenda.

• Don’t include routine operations matters on the agenda.

These belong in regular management or partner meetings.

• To discuss the “state of the firm.” This may be serious

• Hold on a weekend. Begin Friday. End by mid-afternoon

• To provide an opportunity for the members of the firm—or

• In most cases, select a site which will require everyone to stay

business.

all the attorneys—to communicate and socialize together. This is important.

• Even if there is no serious business, it is wise to hold a retreat annually. It is no coincidence that the firms with strong cultures and good internal communications generally hold an annual retreat.

Planning the Retreat • Clearly define the objectives—and be sure they can be accomplished.

6 Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 127, 2016

Sunday.

overnight. The additional cost is worth it. Some of the best discussions occur over a drink after dinner or during a walk before breakfast.

• If it is a serious business retreat, consider having an

experienced outside facilitator who will also be involved in planning the retreat.

• The best schedule for a serious business retreat is no more

than three sessions, no longer than three hours each. Make sure that all topics can be properly addressed.

• Don’t schedule business sessions after dinner.

• Distribute the agenda well in advance along with any reports or “white papers” the attendees should review beforehand.

• The recreational facilities needed—golf, tennis, fitness

centers, etc.—depend on the attendees’ interests as well as the purpose of the retreat. Recreational time for a social retreat will be greater than for a serious business retreat. But, even in the latter case, break time is needed to allow ideas to percolate and the mind to breathe.

• Plan and check out every detail in advance. Murphy’s Law applies to retreats as well.

Conducting the Retreat • Strive for participation by everyone who attends. No one

should be allowed to hold his or her comments until a later date. On the other hand, no one should be allowed to dominate the discussions. These are some of the factors an outside facilitator can generally handle better than someone from the firm.

• Most people participate more actively in smaller groups so

include break-out sessions for in-depth discussion followed by reports to all attendees for further discussion as needed.

• Be sure all post-retreat, follow-up steps are understood and

Post Retreat Follow-Up • Distribute to all appropriate parties minutes or a summary of the retreat. This is the final responsibility of the Retreat Committee and should be done promptly, i.e., within a week.

• It is usually the responsibility of firm management to

ensure that all follow-up action steps are taken and that the schedule for completing them is adhered to.

• Feedback is important. Firms often have all attendees

complete an evaluation form at the close of the retreat and turn it in before they leave.

A successful retreat is a tremendously uplifting experience— just like walking on water! In both cases it is worth the time and effort to determine where the rocks are. n Bob Denney is a recognized authority on strategy, management and leadership for law firms and companies. He serves as an outside Director on company boards and has also served as an interim CEO in turnaround and crisis situations. For further information visit our website at www.robertdenney.com.

assignments made.

3 Steps to Business Development Simplicity by Mike O’Horo For 20 years, Mike O’Horo has been known by lawyers everywhere as The Coach. He trained more than 7000 of them, generating $1.5 billion in new business. Mike can be reached at mikeohoro@rainmakervt.com.

hy do so few lawyers engage in business development, despite abundant and inarguable evidence of its necessity? Many lawyers have told me that the biggest barrier to getting started is feeling overwhelmed, not knowing what to do, or how to begin. Fair enough. You’re not alone. Psychologists cite three obstacles to getting started:

62%

Mental Paralysis

44%

Procrastination

38%

Distraction

You’re paralyzed and unable to start

Not starting due to boredom or lack of motivation

Tried to start but got distracted or interrupted

According to the Getting Started Blues survey, the most frequently cited reason for being stuck is feeling “overwhelmed with so much to do” (68%). Lawyers can certainly identify with that. Others cited “how-to” reasons: • Inability to prioritize—38% • Don’t know where/how to start—33% • Inability to plan out the project—22% • Unclear direction—18% Lawyers trying to begin business development for the first time, or trying to do it in a serious way for the first time, may experience all of these. In my observation, one significant cause is complexity. The legal industry media is awash in articles about business development, each advocating for one or more of dozens of strategies and tactics.

8 8 Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 127, 2016

There are two major categories of business development:

Opportunity Generation Enabling those who need your help to recognize that, and motivating them to contact you to discuss those needs.

Opportunity Conversion Helping those who contact you to make a good decision about what they should do, if anything. In today’s business development conversation, you’ll be inundated with discussions about the why, what, and how of social media, inbound marketing, content marketing, search engine optimization, and any number of other buzzwords. If you didn’t already arrive at the task confused and overwhelmed, that should get you there pretty quickly. Most of the complexity relates to the choice of channels you’ll communicate in, and which mechanisms and tools you should use to optimize that. The good news is that in the beginning those questions are premature. They’re the equivalent of arguing whether you should fly or drive on your vacation before you decide what you want to do and where you want to go. Let’s boil this monster challenge down to its three essential components:

A service to sell.

Not just any service, but the one that you most enjoy providing. Money is only part of your compensation. Another, important one, is doing work that you find challenging, stimulating, and interesting. That’s when you’re at your best, and when it feels least like work. This work must solve a problem that has sufficient impact (strategic, operational, economic, emotional) that, once people recognize that impact, they deem it unacceptable and feel compelled to take action, accept risk, and commit funds. For example, you may love figuring out creative structures to attract expansion capital to growth-stage companies.

Someone to sell it to.

As with your choice of service focus, not just anyone. You need to define an identifiable group of people who share certain characteristics that cause you to conclude that they are very likely to have this problem, acknowledge having it, and to acknowledge its consequences (strategic, practical, economic, emotional). One common shared characteristic is industry. Companies in the same business are likely to experience the same problems. Not all of them at any one time, but most of them at one time or another. Unless they’re outliers (which we can always ignore), they’re almost certain to encounter this problem at some time or another. You may even be able to predict the life cycle stage at which it’s most likely to occur. In our capitalization example above, we might conclude that the typical Silicon Valley-style consumer tech startups don’t need to raise enough capital at any one stage to require multiple sources with differing interests to coalesce, or that their product-development cycles are too short to require your degree of complexity. You may conclude that a capitalintensive industry such as polymers is opportune due to its heavy R&D requirements, and the need to cobble together disparate investors such as manufacturers, materials suppliers, and customers. (My apologies to anyone in the polymer

business who is laughing at my ignorance. This is purely an illustration of logic.)

A way to communicate with those “someones.”

At the very least, you need communication channels that are established and trusted, and that reach a sufficient number of people who care about your problem frequently enough for you to get noticed, establish relevance, and form the desired impression. This is where today’s large discussion about social media, content marketing, etc. comes in. Social media such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Medium, Instagram, Quora and others are channels. As are blogs, email, article placement, and public speaking at conferences. They’re the vehicles that enable others to receive your message and decide how relevant your message and you are to them. They enable you to remain in contact with those who are likely to be faced with the problem you solve, long enough for you to establish your relevance to that circumstance, and still be in contact when the time comes for them to take action to solve it. Marketing is about getting found by the right people, at the right time, for the right reasons. This is how that process works. n

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA’S LEADERS IN… •ESI Processing & Hosting •Data Acquisition & Forensics •Managed Document Review •Paper-based Discovery Services •Court Reporting

With offices in LA Downtown, LA Century City, Irvine and San Diego DTIGlobal.com

FREE MCLE SEMINARS! Call us for information to schedule a complimentary in-person or webinar MCLE seminar on a variety of electronic discovery topics.

16842 Von Karman Avenue, STE 375, Irvine, CA 92606 Office: (949) 622-0650

Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 127, 2016 9

Key Success Factors to Achieve Your Career Goals Y

by Brian Tracy

our primary goal should be to increase the likelihood that you will be one of those remarkable people who achieves greatly and makes a real difference with his or her life. And this is very much in your own hands. To realize your full potential, you must focus on your career goals, hard work and success factors. Free yourself as much as possible from randomness and uncertainty. You must organize your life in such a way that the probabilities of achieving your career goals are extremely high. You must learn the cause and effect relationships between what you want and how to get it through hard work and goal planning. You must take complete control over every part of your life and create your own future. You must leave nothing to chance.

LUCK OR HARD WORK? When people achieve great success faster than others, they are immediately accused of having “good luck” and rarely attribute it to hard work. When people make a mess of their lives, largely due to their own shortcomings, they dismiss it as “bad luck.” One of the reasons for this confusion about the reasons for success and failure is that most people don’t understand the difference between “chance” and “luck.” Chance refers to gambling, to casinos, to blackjack, poker, slot machines and horse racing. In games of chance, the outcome is almost completely out of your control and has nothing to do with success factors in life. Luck, however, is something completely different from chance. What we call “luck” is really the Law of Probabilities in action. The “lucky” individual has done many things that in combination dramatically increased the likelihood that his or her desired career goals would be achieved. If you examine the history of any great success, and review the many actions that preceded it, you will see that the success factors precede it; you will see a definite pattern emerge. You will see that the successful individual did many little things, sometimes for years, which made the final success possible.

THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF ACHIEVING YOUR CAREER GOALS Here is a rule: There is a direct relationship between the number of different things you attempt and your likelihood of eventual success in achieving your career goals. If a new salesperson gets up early each morning, works hard, plans his day, works steadily all day long, talks to as many prospects as possible, follows up persistently, and continually 10 Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 127, 2016

works on himself to improve his selling skills by reading, audio learning and regular attendance at sales courses and seminars, he is going to be far more successful than another salesperson who fails to do these things. His high earnings will not be a matter of luck but rather of design and hard work. Success factors in life and in your career goals are as follows, if you get a good education, thoughtfully match your career choice with your natural talents and abilities, and continually work to upgrade your skills and the value of your contribution to your company, your eventual success by achieving your career goals will not be the result of luck.

CREATE SUCCESS FACTORS FOR YOURSELF An additional luck factor is The Law of Averages, which is an extension of the law of probabilities. This law says that, “Although you cannot predict which one of a series of events will be successful, by the Law of Averages, you know that by doing a certain thing a certain number of times, you will achieve your career goals.” If you read more books, you are much more likely to read something that can help you in your work or personal life and you are adding to your success factors. If you put in hard work by making more sales calls, you will be much more likely to meet the prospect who has an immediate need for what you are selling and you are adding to your success factors.

ACHIEVE YOUR LIFE GOALS If you continually innovate and try new methods to achieve your goals or solve your key problems, you are going to be vastly more successful than someone who plays it safe and tries nothing new or different and you are adding to your success factors. If you wish to achieve success in life and reach your career goals, you must put in hard work and invest in the success factors that will get you there. n Brian Tracy is recognized as the top sales training and personal success authority in the world today. He has authored more than 60 books and has produced more than 500 audio and video learning programs on sales, management, business success and personal development, including worldwide bestseller The Psychology of Achievement. Brian's goal is to help you achieve your personal and business goals faster and easier than you ever imagined. You can follow him on Google+, Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, Linkedin and Youtube.

A TRIAL LAWYER with PROVEN SUCCESS $8 MILLION SETTLEMENT

$4.65 MILLION SETTLEMENT

Motorcycle Accident with Significant Leg Injury.

Wrongful Death case with limited insurance.

$7 MILLION SETTLEMENT

ACCEPTING REFERRALS

Adverse Liability case with Below the Knee Amputation.

Referral fees paid in accordance with State Bar of CA Rules and Regulations.

TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS • PREMISES LIABILITY • GENERAL PERSONAL INJURY 1000 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949-706-7100 twacker@tbwlawfirm.com

COMMUNITY news n Archer Norris is pleased to announce the recent addition of associate Colin J. Paterson. He works in the firm’s Newport Beach office, adding essential depth and breadth to the firm’s litigation practices. Paterson focuses his practice on civil litigation including construction, products liability, bodily injury, business, environmental and transactional matters. His COLIN J. PATERSON litigation skills include trial briefs, motions in limine, trial exhibits and jury instructions. Before joining Archer Norris, Paterson was a contract attorney in San Diego for employment attorney Ira M. Lechner, Of Counsel to the firm of Katz & Ranzman, P.C. He received his J.D. from University of San Diego School of Law in 2012 and his B.A. from San Diego State University in 2007. He was admitted to the State Bar of California in 2013. n Kay Anderle, managing partner of Keller/Anderle LLP, has been named by Best Lawyers® 2016-17 as a Best Lawyer® in the practice areas of white collar criminal defense, and general practice criminal defense. Best Lawyers® is the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession. A listing in Best Lawyers® KAY ANDERLE is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor, conferred on a lawyer by his or her peers. Receiving this designation reflects the high level of respect a lawyer has earned among other leading lawyers in the same communities and the same practice areas for their abilities, their professionalism, and their integrity. With over two decades of experience and nearly 100 cases to jury verdict, Kay Anderle has earned a reputation as a leading trial attorney. She began her legal career 26 years ago in the Orange County District Attorney’s Office where she spent 12 years prosecuting criminal cases.

Have a Press Release you would like to submit for our Community News? Email it to PR@AttorneyJournal.us

12 Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 127, 2016

n For the third consecutive year, Berger Kahn has been included in the Best Lawyers of America list for Southern California, an esteemed list celebrating only the top 3% of the Bar. This year, Stephan Cohn was recognized to the list of Best Lawyers for an additional category of DAVID EZRA Litigation- Insurance. Berger Kahn attorneys were listed for the many areas they demonstrate excellence in their practice of the law, including: Craig Simon— Best Lawyers 2017 – Insurance Law; Sherman Spitz—Best Lawyers 2017 Litigation – Insurance; Stephan Cohn—Best Lawyers 2017 Insurance Law STEPHAN COHN and Litigation – Insurance, and David Ezra—Best Lawyers 2017 Commercial Litigation, Insurance Law, and Insurance – Litigation. Berger Kahn congratulates all of those named to the list for their recognition and thanks our shareholders for bringing this honor to the firm. Umberg and Dean Zipser have again been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2017, and that Dean has been named 2017 Orange County Lawyer of the Year in Intellectual Property Litigation. n The 2017 Best Lawyers® in America have been announced and Aitken Aitken Cohn attorneys have once again been recognized. This is the 30th consecutive year that founding partner of Aitken Aitken Cohn, Wylie Aitken, has received the Best Lawyer distinction, the 5th consecutive years for partners Darren Aitken, Chris Aitken, and Richard Cohn, and the 2nd consecutive years for Ashleigh Aitken, Michael Penn, and Casey Johnson. Furthermore, the firm has the most listed lawyers in any practice area in our corporate headquarters municipality, Santa Ana, with more than double the number of attorneys recognized by Best Lawyers than any other firm in the city.

ASHLEIGH AITKEN

WYLIE AITKEN

COMMUNITY news n Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that eight of the firm’s attorneys were recently selected for inclusion and will be recognized in their respective areas in The Best Lawyers in America© 2017. They are Michael Cucchissi, Real Estate Law; Jeffrey M. Dennis, Insurance Law; Gregory L. Dillion Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Insurance Law; Litigation-Construction, Litigation-Real Estate; Joseph A. Ferrentino, LitigationConstruction, Litigation, Real Estate; Thomas F. Newmeyer, Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, LitigationReal Estate; John A. O’Hara, LitigationConstruction; Bonnie T. Roadarmel, Insurance Law; Carol Sherman Zaist, Commercial Litigation. Greg Dillion was also named the Best Lawyers® 2017 Construction Law “Lawyer of the Year” in Orange County. Best Lawyers is the oldest peer-review publication for the legal profession. Attorneys are chosen through intensive peer-review surveys in which leading lawyers evaluate their professional peers. Best Lawyers listings are published in almost 70 countries worldwide and are recognized for their reliable and unbiased selections.

MICHAEL CUCCHISSI

GREG DILLION

n Smiley Wang-Ekvall, LLP has announced that it has been awarded a Tier One ranking by U.S News & World Report and Best Lawyers® in the 2017 Edition of Best Law Firms for the practice area of Bankruptcy & Creditor-Debtor Rights/Insolvency & Reorganization Law. Founding partner, Evan D. Smiley, was also awarded EVAN D. SMILEY “Lawyer of the Year” in the same category for his work in Orange County. Smiley Wang-Ekvall attorneys have achieved placement in the Best Lawyers listing for three consecutive years since the firm’s founding in fall 2014. This is the firm’s third Tier One ranking. “It continues to be an honor to have our attorneys recognized by Best Lawyers in America and our continued Tier One ranking is an achievement for the firm that reflects our ongoing commitment to delivering quality and excellence to our clients,” said Lei Lei Wang Ekvall, partner with Smiley Wang-Ekvall, LLP. “We are especially proud of our partner Evan D. Smiley for being awarded ‘Lawyer of the Year’ in Orange County for his work in bankruptcy, insolvency and reorganization law. His collaborative spirit and strong sense of leadership have contributed significantly to both the firm and our industry.”

THOMAS NEWMEYER

n Umberg Zipser LLP is pleased to announce that partners Carole Reagan, Thomas Umberg and Dean Zipser have again been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2017, and that Dean has been named 2017 Orange County Lawyer of the Year in Intellectual Property Litigation. DEAN ZIPSER Reagan was selected in the field of Litigation – Intellectual Property and has been on the “Best Lawyers” list since 2013. Umberg was selected for Commercial Litigation and has been on the list since 2008. Zipser, who was first named to Best Lawyers in 2008, was selected for five categories: Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Banking and Finance, Litigation – Intellectual Property, and Litigation – Real Estate, as well as being honored as 2017 Litigation – Intellectual Property Lawyer of Year for Orange County. (Dean previously was named Best Lawyers’ 2014 Orange County Lawyer of the Year in Bet-the-Company Litigation.)

BEN COUGHLAN

Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 127, 2016 13

“Rick is one of the best lawyers in the country. I call him every time I have any issue in Nevada and would not hesitate to refer him any type of case of any size. We recently settled a significant case in Nevada after two days of mediation. Rick was masterful in dealing with the retired judge mediator, the defense team, and our clients, and he maximized the recovery. Whenever I need anything in Nevada, the Richard Harris Law Firm is there for me.” ~ C. Michael Alder, Esq., Alder Law

CAALA Past President and Trial Lawyer of the Year 2004 Los Angeles, California

“I recently co-counseled a serious Las Vegas injury case with Rick Harris and his law firm. Rick’s advocacy and skills are extraordinary, and were instrumental in resolving and maximizing our client’s sizable recovery. The case was expertly worked up, litigated, and masterfully mediated. Everyone I worked with on Rick’s team was outstanding. For either a referral or a co-counsel arrangement, I wholeheartedly recommend Rick and the Richard Harris Law Firm for any Nevada case.” ~ Carl Wolf, Esq., Callaway & Wolf Northern California Super Lawyer 2010 San Francisco, California

The Tenacious Pursuit of Excellence Howard Privette Brings Years of Experience and Exceptional Results to Greenberg Gross LLP; Leads Expansion into Los Angeles by Karen Gorden

oward Privette was born to be a lawyer. When he arrived in the world, his father, Tom, was a law student, and his mother, Suzanne, provided for the family by working in the law school library. His father would often pull double duty studying for classes while caring for the infant Howard, reading “stories” aloud from his casebooks. “I suppose I started my legal studies younger than most,” laughs Howard. “How many other grade-school kids can walk around saying things like ‘waive the tort and sue in assumpsit?’” Today, Howard is one of the leading business trial lawyers in the country. He recently joined the elite litigation boutique Greenberg Gross LLP, and is poised to lead the firm’s entrée into the Los Angeles market. He brings 28 years of experience working in several big international law firms, and is excited by the opportunity to grow the Greenberg Gross footprint beyond Orange County. “Greenberg Gross is best in class of the new breed of litigation-only law firms,” Privette says. “We have an all-star team of legal talent that is intensely focused on achieving justice for our clients in the courtroom.” That intensity and sense of justice are themes that have resonated throughout Privette’s life experiences.

An All-American Kid Privette’s grandfathers both served with distinction in the Navy during World War II. Like many veterans, they stayed in California after the war, settling not far from the naval base in Long Beach. Privette’s grandmothers were both children of immigrants, from Ireland and from Lithuania. “My grandparents lived through the Depression and World War II, and they passed on lessons about the virtues of thrift and hard work. They wanted to create a better life for their children so that they could pursue their dreams, and in turn make the world a better place.” Privette’s parents inherited the same sense of mission. They

16 Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 127, 2016

were the first generation of the family to attend college, working their way through Long Beach State. After law school, his father became a district attorney in Orange County, and his mother worked in county government. In one notable role, Privette’s mother brought Orange County into the digital age, teaching herself about computers and leading the selection and installation of the county’s first modern information systems. Along the way, she met both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates when Apple and Microsoft were still getting started. “My mother frequently told me about these young people she met who had started with little more than a dream and were now changing the world for the better,” Privette recalls. “She believed that her son could do the same.” The law was never far away. As a district attorney, Privette’s father participated in high-profile trials, including the prosecution of a motorcycle gang member who, during the case, threatened to retaliate against Privette’s family. Howard, in elementary school at the time, recalls law enforcement providing 24-hour protection for the family during this period. “I thought it was cool that we had a police car constantly in front of our house,” Privette says. “Mom, not so much.” As he grew older, Privette came to appreciate his father’s courage in pursuing the cause of justice even in the face of such threats. Howard took that same sort of fierce determination to Servite High School in Anaheim, where he was named the Outstanding Graduate of his class. A top student, Privette helped run the school newspaper, and also played football. A bit undersized playing on the defensive line, Privette made up for it with hard-hitting tenacity. “What was pounded into us – literally – on the practice field at Servite is that having all the talent in the world is meaningless without a commitment to being the best,” he says. “Never give up, never accept defeat, and push yourself and your teammates physically and mentally beyond where you ever thought you could go.” Those lessons have stayed with him throughout his life.

Â© christopher TODD studios

ATTORNEY

OF THE MONTH

Wayne R. Gross, Howard M. Privette and Alan A. Greenberg

22016 014

Attorney Atto At Att orneeyy Journal orn or Journa Jou rna rn nal al O Orange Oran raange rran ge County County Co Cou ty | V Vo Volume olu lum uum m mee 1124, 24, 224 44, 20 2016 17 2016 17

Learning From the Best

Yale was Privette’s college of choice because he wanted to be exposed to brilliant people and exciting experiences. He got both, explaining: “The real secret to Yale is not its extensive course offerings, its history, or its beautiful campus. It’s the people – the students, teachers and alumni. They are all brilliant in some way. It is exhilarating to interact with them.” At Yale, Privette studied economics, reflecting his interest in business and finance. At the end of his sophomore year, Privette was accepted into an exclusive academic program that resulted in earning a Master’s degree simultaneously with his Bachelor’s degree. This required him to excel in graduate-level courses during his junior and senior years, including one taught by James Tobin, who had received the Nobel Prize only two years before. “Professor Tobin was obviously a brilliant economist, but I found myself disagreeing with his Keynesian views on economic policy,” Privette says. “He was a great teacher, and he impressed upon me the importance of thinking independently and not rotely accepting what even a Nobel laureate tells you.” Privette attended Stanford Law School. In the summer before classes started, his father, now a veteran district attorney, had him watch the “Paper Chase” movie, starring John Houseman. Privette explains: “Dad said that in real life, law school was 100 times more challenging than what was portrayed in the movie, and that I had to work harder than anyone else, especially in that critical first year.” He took his father’s words to heart. “I worked like a dog. As it turned out, the Stanford professors were not at all abusive like the fictional Professor Kingsfield, and I really liked law school.” After first year, Privette served on the editorial board of the Stanford Law Review and, at graduation, was in the top 10% of his class. Tom Campbell, one of his Stanford professors (and 18 Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 127, 2016

since then Dean of the Haas School of Business at Berkeley as well as Dean of the Chapman University Fowler School of Law), says: “I remember Howard as one of my very best students. He was a leader in student organizations, earning the respect of his peers for his intellectual ability and conscientious dedication to completing tasks. In law school, Howard showed the promise that his subsequent career has fully realized: a charming, hugely bright individual, willing to work hard, and deeply committed to principle.”

An Acclaimed Career Privette started his legal career with Latham & Watkins in Los Angeles when the firm was riding the 1980’s economic boom into national prominence. He learned from working with many of the firm’s senior lawyers, including the firm’s very first litigator, the legendary Max Gillam. “Max was a P-51 fighter pilot turned trial lawyer, and was larger than life.” Privette says. “Max brought tremendous gravitas to his cases. I saw first-hand while working on a sensitive white collar matter the respect and trust that Max rightfully commanded from the U.S. Attorney’s office.” Privette left Latham in early 1996 to work with Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, an old-line San Francisco firm that also became a force in the technology industries emerging in Silicon Valley. Privette, brought in to help build the firm’s securities litigation practice in Los Angeles, quickly made partner and helped spearhead what became an 8-lawyer securities litigation team. One of Privette’s many victories at Brobeck included defeating plaintiffs’ securities legend William Lerach in a head-to-head

battle over the recently passed Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”). Lerach filed a shareholder class action against Privette’s client, challenging a corporate buy-out transaction. After Privette strategically removed the case from Los Angeles Superior Court to federal court, Lerach went on the attack. He filed a motion asserting that the case should remain in state court based on what Privette calls an “imaginative” interpretation of SLUSA. But Privette’s superb briefing and oral argument on the motion ultimately won the day. The judge ruled in Privette’s favor, and the case was soon dismissed in its entirety. Such experiences taught Privette the power of advocacy. “We defeated the most fearsome of opponents first with the pen, and then with oratory. It is that combination of skills that enables a trial lawyer to be of the greatest service to clients.” In early 2003, Privette joined Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker as a partner. By this time, the Enron case was causing a paradigm shift in securities litigation, and Privette’s white collar and civil litigation experience positioned him to serve clients across the spectrum of issues they faced in the postEnron world. Indeed, Privette played a central role in the most significant Enron-era accounting fraud case in southern California. In late 2001, Privette began his representation of the founder and CEO of Homestore.com. Homestore’s stock price soared during the dot-com boom, only to come crashing down when the bubble burst. Privette guided his client through a maelstrom of legal matters based on allegations that the company inflated its advertising revenues. Ultimately, Privette

drew national attention in 2011 with a victory for the CEO in one of the very few securities class actions ever to go to trial in the United States. The plaintiffs sought more than $1 billion in damages, but following a three-week jury trial in Los Angeles federal court, the case was dismissed with prejudice. William Sullivan, who worked closely with Privette at both Brobeck and Paul Hastings, and who was chairman of the Paul Hastings litigation department at the time of the Homestore trial, attributed the victory to Privette’s talent as a trial lawyer, adding that “he’s one of the smartest guys I know. He’s a tough, dogged litigator.” The victory was named by the Daily Journal as one of its “Defense Verdicts of the Year,” and was ranked as one of the top-ten results in the entire United States by the Financial Times in its annual “Innovative Lawyers” report. The Homestore victory was just one in a string of similar high-profile successes. For example, after the 2007 financial crisis, Privette helped lead a team of Paul Hastings lawyers defending UBS in class actions filed in New York federal court relating to the dislocation of the multi-billion dollar markets for auction rate securities. He crafted a motion to dismiss focusing on the unique aspects of those securities and the plaintiffs’ inability to state a claim under federal or state law. Once again, Privette’s superb advocacy resulted in victory for his client. The court granted the motion and dismissed the cases, a result followed in similar cases brought against other investment banks. The American Lawyer called it a “Big Win,” and it resulted in a second top-ten result for Privette in the Financial Times “Innovative Lawyers” report. In 2014, Privette also scored a second “Defense Verdict of

In February 2016, after many successful years as a partner in large international law firms, Privette decided that it was time to take his considerable talent to the litigation boutique Greenberg Gross LLP. “I’ve known Alan and Wayne for years,” Privette says, referring to the firm’s founders, Alan Greenberg and Wayne Gross. “I watched them build the firm into a real powerhouse, and whenever I visited I was struck by the energy and camaraderie in the halls. They were all working hard, winning trial after trial, and having fun doing it. I knew I had to join the team.” Since joining Greenberg Gross, Privette has continued to represent companies and executives in their most significant matters. While enjoying his time in the firm’s original Costa Mesa office, Privette now savors the opportunity to open a new Greenberg Gross office in downtown Los Angeles. “The firm’s expansion into Los Angeles reflects its natural evolution as an elite law firm representing blue chip clients in their most important matters across the country, including Los Angeles. On a personal note, the move gets me back to my professional roots in the courtrooms of Los Angeles, where I first won my spurs as a business trial lawyer.” Privette’s work in Los Angeles does not mean that he is saying good-bye to Orange County. Privette lives in Anaheim Hills with his wife Deirdre Kelly and their 11-year-old son Liam. Deirdre is also a litigation attorney, and serves as Director of Career Services at the Chapman University Fowler School of Law. She is also very active in the local bar. She is the immediate past president of the Orange County Women Lawyers’ Association, and in 2015 was elected Secretary of the Orange County Bar Association, putting her on the ladder to serve as OCBA President in 2019. “Deirdre and I have made service to the Orange County community a top priority. We love it here, and we have no plans of ever leaving.” n Contact Greenberg Gross LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1700 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 P: (949) 383-2800 www.ggtriallaw.com 20 Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 127, 2016 20

Guiding the Evolution of Greenberg Gross

EXPERIENCE

the Year” from the Daily Journal after helping defend the Chairman and CEO of sTec, Inc. in the largest insider trading case ever filed by the SEC in Orange County. After a multi-week trial in the Santa Ana federal courthouse, the jury decided in favor of Privette’s client after only a few hours of deliberations.

» EDUCATION • J.D., Stanford Law School – 1988 (with distinction) • Order of the Coif • Note Editor, Stanford Law Review • R. Hunter Summers Trial Practice Award • M.A., Yale University (Economics) – 1985 • B.A., magna cum laude, Yale College – 1985

» AWARDS & RECOGNITIONS • Daily Journal’s “Top Verdicts of 2011” for defense of Homestores securities class action • Ranked in the Top 10 U.S. litigation matters in the Financial Times’ 2012 Innovative Lawyers report for Homestore securities class action • Ranked in the Top 10 litigation matters in the Financial Times’ 2011 U.S. Innovative Lawyers Report for UBS auction rates securities victory • Daily Journal’s “Top Defense Verdicts of 2014” for insider trading trial victory in SEC v. Moshayedi • Recognized in every year of eligibility as a “Super Lawyer” (2004-2016) • Avvo rating of 10.0 “Superb” • Martindale Hubbell AV Preeminent® Peer Review Rated (5.0 out of 5.0) in the areas of Securities Law and Litigation

» PROFESSIONAL & COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES • Member, Orange County Bar Association (member, Masters Division & past member, Administration of Justice Committee) • Member, Los Angeles County Bar Association • Member, American Bar Association (Securities Litigation Committee), Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Federal Bar Association • Board of Directors, Constitutional Rights Foundation (20082016) • Co-Chair, Paul Hastings pro bono committee (2013-2015)

California Tentative Rulings

Study. Learn. Win. Filing or opposing a motion? Bench Reporter is a searchable archive of tentative rulings. Use it to see how similar motions have been handled in the past and increase your chance of success.

Get the first month for just one dollar by entering promo code OCATTORNEY at checkout. www.benchreporter.com Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 127, 2016â&#x20AC;&#x192; 21

JOURNAL

FEATURED PROFESTSHIOENMAOLNPTROFILE OF

2016

First Things First Eric Traut’s Trail Blazing Accomplishments Have Put Him in a League of His Own

ric Traut, Partner at the Traut Firm in Santa Ana, boasts a CV unlike any other trial attorney in Southern California. As the youngest lawyer ever admitted to the American Board of Trial Advocates, Traut, who was admitted at the age of 33, was also the youngest lawyer to ever win the prestigious Trial Lawyer of the Year award in the history of the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association. But those achievements are far from the only ‘ﬁrsts’ to Traut’s credit. In the months since Traut was ﬁrst featured in Attorney Journal, he’s added even more trailblazing accomplishments to his portfolio of groundbreaking feats in the legal community. In 2016 alone, at just 50 years old with 26 years of practice under his belt, Traut was elevated to ABOTA Diplomate, after successfully trying more than 100 civil jury trials to verdict. By comparison, the overwhelming majority of trial attorneys who have achieved Diplomate status have been practicing a minimum of 40 years, and are on average more than 70 years old. 22 Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 127, 2016

by Jennifer Hadley

Moreover, Traut broke new ground in litigation over the last year, when he became the first lawyer to ever lead a case to binding arbitration against the Pechanga Casino, securing a record arbitration award of $2.88M for his client who suffered severe injuries after a slip and fall injury. This also marked the largest victory in the state of California’s history against the Pechanga Indian Reservation under the Pechanga Tort Liability Act. Incidentally, the resort’s only settlement offer in this case was just $60,000. Furthermore, Traut, a longtime advocate for the use of Expedited Jury Trials, held the first public Expedited Jury Trial in 2015, which attracted not only lawyers and law students, but claims representatives from insurance companies, eager to learn more about the process before AB555 mandated that all limited civil cases be handled as expedited jury trials effective July 1, 2016. All of these breakthroughs in Traut’s career naturally beg the

“I love what I do. I walk into work excited to be here.” question: What is Traut’s secret? What drives him to be the first or the youngest to set new benchmarks? To hear him tell it, there is no nebulous secret to his success. He works hard not to set records, but because his work is rewarding.

Fueled by Passion “I love what I do. I walk into work excited to be here. I love the practice of law, but I’m always looking for the most efficient ways to get results. I want results without wasting time, money or stress. My goal is to work efficiently for my clients, and for the courts without compromising the quality of work that I do,” he says simply. To that end, he says that he recognized the benefits of Expedited Jury Trials more than a decade ago, after receiving countless exit surveys from jurors, which were given to him by a now retired judge. “The resounding theme in all of those surveys was: Why are the same questions asked over and over again? Why does it take two hours for a closing argument? Juries almost unanimously complained that trials just take too long,” Traut says. As such, and because Traut built his career early on with smaller cases, he immediately saw that smaller cases were perfectly suited to be tried as Expedited Jury Trials, and he began utilizing them 25 years ago. “There is too much churning of paper in these cases, which is just unnecessary,” Traut says. “These unnecessarily long cases have been tying up the courtrooms. By using EJTs, we protect the 7th Amendment and ensure that all people have open access to the courts, through keeping them open and available to everyone. Shorter trials also make the lives of judges easier, who are now more than ever overworked and frustrated. I’m proud that I’ve been an advocate for these types of trials for years.” Incidentally, Traut has already lined up his next public Expedited Jury Trial, which will likely occur in early 2017. As far as breaking new ground in the Pechanga case goes, Traut says his drive to succeed where others had yet to do so was the result of the compassion he felt for his client, despite the fact that fellow attorneys advised him not to take the case. “The defense was claiming that the whole thing was a hoax, and that my client was faking injuries so as not to have to return to work. She had been a school teacher for years, and loved her job. The injury left her unable to read without vomiting and becoming dizzy. She also suffered from eye fatigue. We brought in her principal among others who testified that she was a ‘gold-standard’ teacher, and there was no way she was faking her injuries,” Traut says. The case and ensuing $2.88M award made headlines in large part because the accident occurred on Indian land, where tribal agreements with the state required that it be handled through

arbitration. As part of this agreement, Traut says, the case had to be arbitrated through JAMs, and it had to take place in Riverside. The victory for his client wound up being not only the first time a case of this type went all the way through arbitration, but it was also the largest verdict in history against the resort. That’s not the only headline-grabbing case Traut has been involved in this past year. He is also representing a client who found a finger in her food while dining at an Applebee’s, in a case which made not only the newspapers, but was featured on Saturday Night Live. Traut has also taken on other unusual cases of late, including representing four women who were victimized by film producer and director Kevin Roy, who used hidden cameras to spy on and film women without their knowledge. “I love having a wide variety of cases to work. I love the challenge of it. Every case is different, and it is a rush to me to persuade jurors to find for my clients. Whether a case is a small, limited civil matter, or a multi-million-dollar case, I will try it,” he says.

Forging A New Path Into the Future As far as the future is concerned, Traut intends to continue doing what he’s been doing for the better part of the last three decades. “I want to continue to lecture, and to teach wherever possible. I especially hope to continue to educate others about the need for professionalism and civility in the practice of law. It’s unfortunate that these principles aren’t taught in school, but it is possible to have adversaries in the courtroom without being adversarial, so that’s a big emphasis with ABOTA and something I’m also eager to teach or reinforce to others,” he says. Finally, Traut adds of the future, “My plan is to continue to give back through my work with the Orange County Bar Foundation, and to do my part to ensure that everyone has equal access to the courts. I will continue to try to help people. It is incredibly rewarding, it makes me grateful that I am able to do what I do, and it reminds me that I have been blessed in life, and as the result I have a responsibility to do what I can to help others.” n Contact Eric Traut Traut Firm Griffin Towers, Suite 700 5 Hutton Centre Dr. Santa Ana, CA 92707 P: (714) 835-7000 www.trautfirm.com eric@trautfirm.com Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 127, 2016 23

IS YOUR LAW FIRM MAKING THE BEST IMPRESSION?

We’ll help you put your best foot forward. From logos and brochures to websites, strategy, writing and beyond, we’ve got you covered! Jenny Strauss, Partner (215) 460-0835 jenny@skidmutro.com

View our portfolio at skidmutro.com 24 Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 127, 2016

McIntyre’s Civil Alert Organized Succinct Summaries by Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.

Monty A. McIntyre has over 30 years of experience as a mediator and arbitrator. More than 35 years of experience as a civil trial lawyer representing both plaintiffs and defendants in business and commercial, bad faith, brain injury, construction, land use/CEQA, medical malpractice, personal injury, real property and wrongful death cases. To schedule a meeting with Monty A. McIntyre contact Kelsey Hannah at ADR Services, Inc. at 619-233-1323 or kelsey@adrservices.org

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Civil Procedure (Jurisdiction) Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court (Anderson) (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 4506107: The California Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeal which held that petitioner was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the California courts on the basis of specific jurisdiction. Petitioner objected to California exercising jurisdiction over it for claims alleged by nonresidents of California. Personal jurisdiction was authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10. Although petitioner’s business contacts in California were insufficient to invoke general jurisdiction, the California Supreme Court concluded that the company’s California activities were sufficiently related to the nonresident plaintiffs’ suits to support the invocation of specific jurisdiction under which personal jurisdiction is limited to specific litigation related to the defendant’s state contacts. (August 29, 2016.)

Government Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates (County of Los Angeles) (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 4506106: The California Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal finding that storm drainage system permits issued by a state agency were federally mandated and local government agencies therefore could not seek reimbursement from the state for the associated costs. (California Constitution, article XIII B, section 6(a).) The California Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that no federal law or regulation imposed the conditions nor did the federal regulatory system require the state to impose them. The permit conditions were imposed as a result of the state’s discretionary action. (August 29, 2016.)

CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL Arbitration Penilla v. Westmont Corporation (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 4709888: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying a motion to compel arbitration of a complaint 26 Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 127, 2016

by 61 mobile home tenant plaintiffs alleging contract, tort and statutory causes of action. The Court of Appeal ruled that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it failed to disclose prohibitively expensive arbitration fees and was neither provided in a Spanish-language copy nor explained to respondents who did not understand written English. The arbitration provision was also substantively unconscionable because it imposed arbitral fees that were unaffordable or would have substantially deterred respondents from asserting their claims, unreasonably shortened limitations periods for many of the asserted causes of action, and unreasonably limited the remedies available in arbitration for statutory claims. (C.A. 2nd, September 9, 2016.)

Civil Procedure Local TV v. Superior Court (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 4578645: The Court of Appeal granted a writ petition and ordered the trial court to grant petitioner/defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a case alleging misappropriation of name and likeness and other causes of action. The Court of Appeal concluded that, based on the broad consent given in a written agreement between respondents/plaintiffs and Los Angeles television station KTLA regarding the distribution of “Kurt the CyberGuy” materials to other television stations, respondents could not prove lack of consent to the manner in which petitioner used the CyberGuy material. (C.A. 2nd, September 2, 2016.) Minick v. City of Petaluma (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 4578644: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting a motion for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) setting aside an earlier order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case. Plaintiff’s attorney submitted a declaration in support of the motion explaining that, at the time that he prepared plaintiff’s summary judgment opposition papers, he was suffering from a serious illness for which he was under heavy medication. Although the attorney was unaware of it at the time, cognitive impairment caused by a combination of his illness and his medicated state led him to overlook readily available evidence. The Court of Appeal deferred to the trial court’s broad discretion in ruling on this type of motion. (C.A. 1st, September 2, 2016.)

Suarez v. Trigg Laboratories (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 4655761: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting an anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Plaintiff had previously sued defendant for quantum meruit for consulting services provided by plaintiff to increase company profits and sell the company. That lawsuit was settled at a mediation for $175,000. Plaintiff did not know, at the time of the settlement, of communications that defendant and its counsel and potential buyers were engaged in regarding a sale of the business. When plaintiff later learned of these discussions, he sued to rescind the settlement agreement based upon fraudulent concealment, and again sought quantum meruit. The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court properly granted the anti-SLAPP motion because the action arose from protected activities. The Court of Appeal did not consider the second issue, whether plaintiff could demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, because plaintiff/appellant raised no issue on appeal regarding this issue. (C.A. 2nd, September 7, 2016.) Visha Dev, M.D., Inc. v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _, 2016 WL 4538397: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment for defendants. Plaintiff’s claim for quantum meruit was barred because it was filed more than two years after he received the Explanation of Benefit letters. (C.A. 2nd, August 31, 2016.)

Employment Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. (2016) _ Cal. App.4th _, 2016 WL 4506089: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s summary judgment for defendant. Plaintiff sued his former employer, defendant, alleging causes of action for disability discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff’s son requires daily dialysis. According to the evidence, plaintiff must be the one to administer the dialysis. For several years, plaintiff’s supervisors scheduled him so that he could be home at night for his son’s dialysis. The schedule changed when a new supervisor took over and ultimately terminated plaintiff for refusing to work a shift that did not permit him to be home in time for his son’s dialysis. The Court of Appeal ruled that plaintiff had demonstrated triable issues of material fact on his causes of action for associational disability discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. (C.A. 2nd, August 29, 2016.) Hott v. College of the Sequoias Community College District (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _, 2016 WL 4611056: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling that plaintiff was entitled to year-for-year credit for her 15 years of administrative experience as an administrator for defendant when determining her salary as a new faculty member after her administrative position was eliminated due to budget cuts. The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court erred by finding plaintiff was entitled to a salary

greater than the maximum credit for five years of experience authorized in the collective bargaining agreement. (C.A. 5th, September 6, 2016.)

Government California Public Utilities Commission v. Superior Court (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 4540053: The Court of Appeal granted a writ petition and commanded the trial court to set aside and vacate its order overruling a demurrer and to enter an order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. Public Utilities Code section 1759 bars the superior court from exercising jurisdiction over a lawsuit to compel the California Public Utilities Commission to produce documents under the Public Records Act. (C.A. 1st, August 31, 2016.)

Labor Hott v. College of the Sequoias Community College District (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 4611056: See summary above under Employment.

Real Property Coastal Hills Rural Preservation v. County of Sonoma (2016) _ Cal. App.4th _, 2016 WL 4538384: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying a writ petition seeking to overturn respondent’s approval of a proposed expansion of a Buddhist retreat center. The trial court correctly ruled that respondent had properly adopted a mitigated negative declaration in lieu of a formal environmental impact report in approving the third in a series of master use permits for real parties in interest Jack Petranker and the Head Lama of the Tibetan Nyingma Meditation Center. (C.A. 1st, August 31, 2016.) Lucioni v. Bank of America (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _, 2016 WL 4655762: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer, without leave to amend, to a complaint seeking an injunction to prevent a foreclosure. In an action under the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights for violation of Civil Code section 2924(a)(6), requiring an entity initiating a foreclosure to be legally entitled to do so, injunctive relief is not authorized by either Civil Code section 2924.12(a)(1) or 2924.19(a)(1) and therefore is not available as a remedy for a violation of section 2924(a)(6). (C.A. 2nd, September 7, 2016.) Schellinger Brothers v. Cotter (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _, 2016 WL 4491450: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment of $2,855,431.77 for plaintiff for breach of a contract to sell real property, following a bench trial. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court finding that defendant committed an egregious bad faith breach of his contract with plaintiff, and plaintiff suffered damages proximately caused by the breach in the amount fixed by the trial court. While the damages were of unprecedented size, they were expenses properly incurred in preparing to enter upon the land and consequential damages and therefore recoverable under Civil Code section 3306. (C.A. 1st, August 26, 2016.) n Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 127, 2016 27

Specific Facts Build Powerful Marketing Arguments by Trey Ryder

awyers often carry out marketing programs under the misconception that if they offer general information about their practice, their prospects will figure out the rest. Wrong! If you assume your prospects will fill in the blanks, you’re asking too much. For example, if I said to my prospects, who are attorneys, “I’m a marketing consultant for lawyers” and told them nothing more, I might get a few phone calls, but not enough to sustain a business. As consumers, you and I are bombarded with hundreds of marketing messages every day. We do our best to screen them out unless the product or service interests us. The problem is, sometimes we get so good at screening out advertising that we exclude even those ads that could have helped us had we paid attention. Then we turn the tables. As marketers, you and I take little comfort knowing that our prospects try to screen out our messages as successfully as we screen out messages from other advertisers. How you craft your marketing message and how you deliver information directly relates to whether your prospects focus on your message or tune it out. The most powerful marketing messages are specific and direct. They leave nothing to your reader’s imagination. What’s more, you’ll find that the more information you provide, the more your prospects believe your message because it is positive and specific. These tips will increase your prospect’s interest, your credibility, and your chances of getting the response you want. Apply these tips through all of your marketing communications: Tip #1: Provide full facts that support your marketing message. When you identify and prove the problem exists—and identify and prove your solution works—you should include specifics, numbers, facts and detailed descriptions in every step. Here are sample statements about lawyer marketing. Which do you find most persuasive? Statement 1: Lawyers who market their practices increase their average income. Statement 2: Lawyers who market their practices increase their average income by 300%. Statement 3: Lawyers who market their practices increase their 28 Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 127, 2016

average income from $75,000 to $225,000 per year. Summary: Statement one offers no specifics. It may be true, but you find no facts on which you can rely. It is nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim. Statement two is more vivid because of the 300%, which is clearly an eye opener. Statement three is the most persuasive because it gives exact dollar amounts that you clearly understand, rather than a percentage. Disclaimer: Don’t rely on these numbers because I made them up. But even if the numbers aren’t correct, they look correct because they are specific. Specifics create the appearance of truth. Your marketing is vivid, persuasive, and credible when you include specifics. No question, when you write in generalities, you write more quickly. But the time it takes to research and include precise facts is well rewarded because your persuasive powers increase dramatically. Tip #2: Invite your prospects to take action. At one time or another, you’ve probably called a business only to find that the person who answered the phone was less than helpful and, perhaps, downright rude. After we experience this a few times, all of us wonder whether our calls are welcome. In your materials, use statements like: I invite you to call with your questions or concerns. I’ll be happy to talk with you over the phone or in person, whichever you prefer. You could rephrase it, focusing on “you”: You’re invited to call me to discuss your company’s legal matters. I’ll be glad to talk with you over the telephone, or in my office or yours, whichever is easiest for you. Tip #3: Tell prospects the action you want them to take. The more you leave to chance, the more you risk that your prospect won’t do anything. Here are a few action statements: • To receive your free copy of my Executive Briefing on Director’s Liability, call (phone number) or e-mail (address). • If you’d like to talk with me over the telephone, call (phone number). • Call now to reserve your seats for my next seminar: (phone number). Tip #4: Tell prospects how easy it is to respond. Your prospects may perceive contacting you to be such a hassle that, instead, they decide to “just forget it!” What’s more, they may hate leaving messages because not all lawyers return phone calls.

Take these steps: Tell prospects how easy it is to respond to your offer. Then assure prospects that, if you’re not available when they call, you’ll return their calls promptly. For example: • You can reach me by phone (number), fax (number), or e-mail at (address) — whichever you prefer. If I’m with a client when you call, I’ll get back with you just as soon as I’m available. • You can reach me simply by picking up the phone and dialing (number). If I’m out when you call, I promise I’ll return your call just as quickly as I’m back in the office. Tip #5: Tell prospects the specific services you offer. Law has become so specialized that your services may be more narrow or broad-based than your prospects expect. The only specific, direct way to cover your bases is to describe in detail the services you offer. Because if your prospects don’t think you provide a particular service, they’ll call someone else. To attract prospects who need specific services, you should spell out in your marketing materials the services you offer. Tip #6: Name the specific clients you serve. If your field of law is broken down by the types clients you serve, spell out those types or groups. If prospects don’t see their group in your materials, they could easily conclude that you won’t represent them. Tip #7: Provide specific facts whenever possible. One of my friends is a trial attorney who won the largest judgment in Arizona. When I refer a prospect to him, if I told the prospect only that he is a trial attorney, they might not know what that means. This is because people think of lawyers more for the types of cases they handle and the type of law they practice than for the methods they use (trial) to achieve the result. So, instead, I give them key facts on which they can rely: First, I say he is my friend, which transfers my credibility to him. Second, I say he won a $1,500,000,000 judgment at trial, the largest ever awarded in Arizona, which proves he is a skilled, experienced lawyer. Third, I say he has handled several cases for my wife and me, which serves as our testimonial. Three key facts, all true, all specific, and all designed to help the person decide whether to contact this lawyer. In conclusion, you hurt your marketing effort when you use words that are not specific or direct. Don’t assume anything. Spell out everything. Generalities hurt. Specifics persuade. n Trey Ryder specializes in Education-Based Marketing for Lawyers. He designs dignified marketing programs for lawyers and law firms in the United States, Canada and other English-speaking countries. Trey works from his offices in Payson, Arizona, and Juneau, Alaska. To read more of Trey’s articles, visit the Lawyer Marketing Advisor at www.treyryder.com.

is the actual words

Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 127, 2016 29

Effective Strategies to Gain More Online Reviews by Jonathan Goudy

nline reputation management for law firms has been in the spotlight over the last couple of years and many law firms are going to great lengths to boost their online reputations. It is clear that the public loves to read the opinions and experiences of past clients before taking the plunge to commit to a particular law firm. Even if a potential client hears about your firm offline, chances are they will still go online to do their “homework.”

What Does Not Work Well Doing Nothing and/or Being Oblivious Reviews do not typically show up on their own. You must at least ask your clients to consider it, and often need to reiterate it to them during multiple stages along the way. At the very least, you should always be aware of what is being said about your firm and actively respond to your firm’s reviews. You should always thank clients for positive feedback and attempt to remedy any negative review received. Not being involved or ignoring comments could negatively impact your reputation. By always responding to comments and reviews you will be in a better position to control the narrative about your firm. Getting to it When Time Permits If your law firm is struggling to gain more online reviews, you need to take a closer look at your current strategy. Focusing on reviews “as time permits” is one of the most common issues we see when there are a lack of reviews. If you can make time for it, and make it a top priority of the firm, you will likely see the results you seek. Perhaps your only method to gain reviews is to send an email to your previous satisfied clients once a month, requesting their feedback. Unfortunately this method often receives little response and cultivates a very small volume of published online reviews for firms each year.

What Does Work Well Have a Dedicated Employee Focused on Reviews If budget is an issue, make reviews a primary focus for one of your current employees. Delegating the responsibility to request reviews and follow up with satisfied clients is a great strategy for gaining more reviews. You could even consider incentivizing that person with a small bonus for each review they are able to collect. Having seen this method in action, a law firm has the potential to increase their reviews significantly in a small amount of time. 30 Attorney Journal Orange County | Volume 127, 2016

Online Review Software Management Systems Implementing an online review software system such as BirdEye is another method for gaining more reviews. A system like BirdEye can take the guesswork out of the reviews process by continually following up with clients through email and text. BirdEye makes leaving reviews very easy by providing clients a link. If your firm is closing a high volume of cases a month, Podium might be a good option for you. Podium is another online review software system, though it has a higher price tag than some others. Podium builds their application programming interface (API) code into your case-management software, so anytime a case closes in your system, the client receives a text and an email. Podium also works well for international law firms, making it possible to text review requests to international phone numbers.

Other Important Tips In order for your law firm to continue to gain online reviews you must have an online presence. Make sure your firm is listed on applicable review sites and spend time building and maintaining your online presence. Some important tips to remember when working to get more online reviews: • It is vital not to wait too long to request a review. As time passes, the enthusiasm of your satisfied client may slip away. • Make your strategy a priority. Even the best intentions fall flat without dedication to your review-gaining plan. • Don’t create work for your client. Make the review process as simple as possible. Provide clear instructions, links and encouragement. • Don’t panic in the face of a negative review. As you continue to grow positive reviews, a negative one won’t hinder you. Besides, having fifty 5-star reviews is a little unnatural and can appear suspicious. • Always be sure that your techniques for collecting online reviews are in accordance with state and local bar guidelines, laws, and requirements of various review platforms. Gaining online reviews can positively impact your marketing efforts and is essential for the growth of your firm. We hope these tips will equip you and your firm to make generating client reviews a part of your firm’s daily agenda. n Jonathan Goudy is a Marketing Consultant for ConsultWebs and directs and coordinates clients’ online marketing efforts, with a specific focus on generating qualified leads. Learn more at www.Consultwebs.com.

100% of Practice Devoted to Litigation As a victim or fellow attorney, your complex, hard-fought injury case calls for a PROVEN, DYNAMIC TRIAL TEAM. We put experience gained in MORE THAN 100 JURY TRIALS to work for clients.

•

Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Cases; taking cases at all stages of litigation, including trial

•

Wrongful Death

•

Catastrophic Injury

•

Auto Accidents

•

Select State & Federal Criminal Defense Cases

BRUNO 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 1270 Newport Beach, CA 92660

NALU Toll Free: (800) 844 6907 Phone: (949) 988-0932 www.brunonalu.com

PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

Post Falls, ID PERMIT NO. 32