Tag: legal

New California case – an attorney cannot make assertions in court that lack factual support and supporting law – why this is important, because unfortunately it happens too often

New California appellate case in part discusses attorney rules of professionalism and professional conduct – and that “Lawyers may not make assertions in court that lack factual support, regardless of how much the lawyer or the client ‘earnestly believes’ them,” and “the legal profession runs on facts, law, and justice.” Whereas the facts in N.D. v. The Superior Court (E.F.) involve attorney conduct or misconduct at the trial court level and also at the appellate court level, and in part pertain to accusations that were made against the trial judge, the discussion and the quotes from the case in this post pertain to attorneys in the whole and overall (N.D., Petitioner v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent, E.F., Real Party in Interest (January 20, 2-26) 117 Cal. App. 5th 1292).

It is too relatively easy to throw a bunch of unsupported fact and law allegations into a pleading or other filing with the court, and it also can be easy to argue unsupported fact and law allegations, including new allegations, at a hearing, if the court so allows over objection. For the most part, the majority of attorneys do not do this, and many judges will not allow it, but it still happens. Whereas it is easy to throw in a bunch of persuasive one-liner allegations, it takes considerable time and effort to then disprove them. A case like N.D. v. Superior Court (E.F.) along with other already existing supporting authorities are important to help try to keep cases under procedural and legal due process control.

The following are quotes from the case:

“There are many respected professions in which one may write solely to express someone’s sentiments. An advertiser can trumpet the good qualities of their client’s product without disclosing the negatives. A PR professional can put their client’s crisis in the best light without acknowledging the counterpoints. A speechwriter can craft aspirational promises without conceding the candidate’s limited ability to follow through. In these fields, delivering the client’s message is the name of the game.

The law is not one of those professions.

Lawyers are not mere mouthpieces for clients. Our profession depends on exercising judgment in what we say and how we say it. At times, the only correct professional judgment is to tell the client, “no.”

We publish this opinion as a cautionary tale: Lawyers may not make assertions in court that lack factual support, regardless of how much the lawyer or the client “earnestly believes” them. Lawyers may not impugn the integrity of the very system of justice in which they serve without a solid basis in both fact and law. Dissatisfaction with a ruling, however deeply felt, is not itself evidence of judicial misconduct.”

* * * * *

“Most lawyers show remarkable skill in helping clients understand our professional obligations yet too many mistake the need for zealous advocacy with a “the customer is always right” policy. We remind them that the legal profession runs on facts, law, and justice. The law cannot tolerate unsupported assertions fueled only by desires, especially baseless accusations against our hardworking trial judges.”

* * * * *

“‘This court may find a writ petition to be frivolous and order sanctions if we conclude the petition was prosecuted for an improper motive or the petition is indisputably without merit . . . .’”

* * * * *

“We are particularly concerned with [attorney’s name removed for this post] disregard of his duty to uphold the respect owed to the judiciary. It is one thing to assert in a petition that the trial court committed error. An attorney acts well within their duty as an advocate to raise good-faith arguments challenging rulings, even when it presents an uphill battle. There is nothing inherently improper about making allegations of bias or discrimination against a trial court. (Citations omitted.) Attorneys can and should raise such claims, even if they are ultimately unsuccessful—as long as there is a plausible legal basis and evidence in the record to support them.”

* * * * *

“Rather than offering evidence, [attorney’s name removed from this post] wrongly relies on “earnest” beliefs he shares with his client. An attorney cannot raise a claim in court based solely on the sincerity of an unsupported belief. (Rules of Prof. Conduct, rules 3.1 [a lawyer shall not “assert a position in litigation” “without probable cause”], 3.3 [a lawyer shall not “knowingly make a false statement of fact or law” to the court].) “[C]ounsel has a professional responsibility not to pursue an appeal [or assert a position] that is frivolous or taken for the purpose of delay, just because the client instructs him or her to do so.” (In re Marriage of Gong & Kwong (2008) 163 Cal. App. 4th 510, 521.)

An attorney’s duty to advocate zealously for their client does not trump the equally important duty to “exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice.” (Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 2.1) An attorney owes a duty to the client and the profession to advise the client that accusations like those presented here must be supported by evidence in the record. If the client continues to press the attorney to raise the claim in court, “the high ethical and professional standards of a member of the bar and an officer of the court require the attorney to inform the client that the attorney’s professional responsibility precludes him or her from pursuing such [a claim].” (In re Marriage of Gong & Kwong, supra, 163 Cal. App. 4th at 521.)”

Concluding comments:

N.D., Petitioner v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent, E.F., Real Party in Interest is another case in a line of legal authorities and rules of professional conduct which hold that an attorney cannot plead or make or be involved in pleading or making claims or arguments that are not sufficiently supported by actual existing facts (evidence) and supporting law – that doesn’t mean that those facts (evidence) and that that law will or must ultimately prevail in the case, but they must nevertheless exist. In N.D., Petitioner v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent, E.F., Real Party in Interest the attorney was sanctioned $25,000. Unfortunately during the past few years I have seen or been involved in certain cases where an attorney on the other side in my view played the system too far in disregard of the actual facts, the evidence, and the law.

Best to you, David Tate, Esq.

Please reach out on this topic or on other topics if you wish.

* * * *

Thank you for viewing and reading this discussion. Please do pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested as it is only through collaboration and sharing that great things and success are more quickly achieved. If you are interested in discussing anything that I have said in the discussion above or in either of my two blogs (see blog addresses below), or if you simply want to reach out or are seeking assistance, it is best to reach me by email at dave@tateattorney.com.

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

Trust, estate, probate, power of attorney, fiduciary, beneficiary, conservatorship, and elder and dependent adult abuse litigation and contentious administrations, undue influence, fraud and deceit, real property partition, physical and mental health and challenging and contentious personalities and relationships.

Trust, estate and probate administrations and litigation involving special assets such as business ownership interests and operating businesses, asset co-ownership disputes, contentious governance, intellectual property assets, art and collectible assets, ongoing future contractual rights, buyouts and sales, M&A disputes, businesses divorces, real property partition, and accountings.

Businesses and third party disputes and litigation – contract, licensing, co-business, royalty and other arrangements, unfair business practices, fraud and deceit, lack of good faith and fair dealing, buyouts and sales, mergers, acquisitions, ventures, etc.

Business co-ownership and internal governance disputes and litigation, business divorces, buyouts and sales, merger and acquisition disputes, family, closely held and professional businesses, accountings, and audits, D&O, boards, audit committees and investigations. Legal authority, rights, duties, conflicts of interest, diligence, compliance, liability, BJR, legal risk management, and resolution.

Real property and financial and personal property breach of contract, and ownership and co-ownership disputes and litigation, and real property partition actions.

Trials.

Mediator and dispute and litigation resolution services.

Legal risk and uncertainty management processes – authority, rights, duties, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, liability, and resolution.

Other and additional disputes, litigation and issues that fall within the above areas – court and trial evidence, persuasion, debate and fallacies, using AI assistance, IP, meetings, defamation, risk management processes, workplace, new laws, regulations and government actions – impact/legality, law and legal matters in the news, etc.

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation, or as or for my opinions and views on the subject matter.

Also note – sometimes I include links to or comments about materials from other organizations or people – if I do so, it is because I believe that the materials are worthwhile reading or viewing; however, that does not mean that I do not or that I might not have a different view about some or even all of the subject matter or materials, or that I necessarily agree with, or agree with everything about or relating to, that organization or person, or those materials or the subject matter.

Please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My blogs are:

http://tateattorney.com – business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. – previously at http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Prior blog: Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing only as an attorney in California.

California Partition of Real Property Act – The Buyout Process or Partition by Sale or Partition In Kind Processes

            This post is my third post in a series discussing the California Partition of Real Property Act. This post provides a summary of the buyout process or in the alternative the partition by sale or partition in kind processes.

            The law still favors partition in kind; however, as many real properties cannot be partitioned in kind or because partition in kind may in some circumstances result in prejudice to a cotenant, in the majority of partition actions to which the Act applies the result will either be a buyout by one or more of the cotenants who did not bring the partition action, or partition by sale on the open-market or possibly sale by sealed bids or auction (see also, e.g., California Code of Civil Procedure §874.319 for the meaning of “great prejudice”). Further, if one or more of the cotenants that did not bring the partition action under the Act does not buy out all of the interests of all of the cotenants that did bring the action or claim for partition, whether the partition proceeds to partition by sale or partition in kind also depends on the remedies and actions that were requested in the claim or action for partition.

            Remember, if the Partition of Real Property Act does not apply, in the case of a partition action California’s other already-existing partition statutes and cases will apply.

            Between the partition buyout process or partition by sale or partition in kind many different scenarios are possible when the California Partition of Real Property Act applies. This discussion is a summary. You can refer for example to California Code of Civil Procedure §§874.317-874.321. It is also possible that other statutes or relevant case law could apply.

            The most simple scenario is that the real property is owned by only two cotenants in common, one of whom brings the action for partition, after which the property is appraised by the Court, and thereafter the cotenant who did not bring the action for partition timely gives notice that he or she or it will buy all of the interest of the cotenant who did bring the action for partition, at the appraised amount, and the buying cotenants also has the ability to and does fund the buyout in a timely manner.

            A second relatively simple scenario is that the real property is owned by three cotenants in common, two of whom file an action for partition, and similar to the above scenario the cotenant who did not bring the partition action timely gives notice that he or she or it will buy all of the interests of the cotenants who did bring the action for partition, at the appraised amount or amounts, and the buying cotenant also has the ability to and does fund that buyout in a timely manner.

            Similarly, if all of the interest or interests of the cotenant or cotenants in common who bring the partition action are being bought out by the cotenant or cotenants who did not bring the partition action, the scenarios tend to be less numerous or complicated. If more than one of the cotenants who did not bring the partition action are buying out all of the interest or interests of the cotenant or cotenants who did bring the partition action the general or statutory rule is that the buying cotenants buyout in accord with their ownership percentages. Question: What if the buying cotenants propose buyout percentages that are different while still buying out all of the interest or interests of the cotenant or cotenants who brought the partition action? Might it be possible that the Court would accept that type of scenario – well, it might be possible depending on the view of the specific Court in which the partition case has venue – if the Court does not allow such an alternative buyout proposal, the result might be partition by sale or possibly partition in kind.

            The Partition of Real Property Act requires that all of the interest or interests of the cotenant or cotenants who bring the action for partition be bought out by the cotenant or cotenants that did not bring the action for partition, and that if that does not occur then partition by sale or in kind (that is, the Act requires that all of the interest or interests of the cotenant or cotenants who bring the partition must all be bought out). Question: Again, what if all of the tenants in common propose something different to the Court and all of the co-owning tenants in common agree and so stipulate? Again, that would need to be determined on a case-by-case and Court-by-Court basis.

            If the property is to be sold such as on the open-market the Act provides a statutory scheme and timeline, including that the property be offered for sale by a real estate broker who is licensed in the State of California and approved by the Court (see, e.g., California Code of Civil Procedure §§874.320-874.321).

            There are many different scenarios that can occur throughout this entire process including objections that can be made, contrary evidence and requests that can be introduced, and issues that might need to be litigated and determined by the Court – there are too many different scenarios to cover in this discussion. However, the above discussion gives you an overview, and you can also read the statutes which cover many of the possible scenarios.

            I will be posting a fourth discussion in this series – in which I will discuss additional and different issues and claims that also can arise in and relate to partition actions and co-owner tenant in common disputes, such as claims and counter claims of wrongdoing, breach of duties, for damages or reimbursement, and possibly for costs or attorneys’ fees.

Best to you, David Tate, Esq.

Please reach out on this topic or on other topics if you wish.

* * * *

Thank you for viewing and reading this discussion. Please do pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested as it is only through collaboration and sharing that great things and success are more quickly achieved. If you are interested in discussing anything that I have said in the discussion above or in either of my two blogs (see blog addresses below), or if you simply want to reach out or are seeking assistance, it is best to reach me by email at dave@tateattorney.com.

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

Trust, estate, probate, power of attorney, fiduciary, beneficiary, conservatorship, and elder and dependent adult abuse litigation and contentious administrations, undue influence, fraud and deceit, real property partition, physical and mental health and challenging and contentious personalities and relationships.

Trust, estate and probate administrations and litigation involving special assets such as business ownership interests and operating businesses, asset co-ownership disputes, contentious governance, intellectual property assets, art and collectible assets, ongoing future contractual rights, buyouts and sales, M&A disputes, businesses divorces, real property partition, and accountings.

Businesses and third party disputes and litigation – contract, licensing, co-business, royalty and other arrangements, unfair business practices, fraud and deceit, lack of good faith and fair dealing, buyouts and sales, mergers, acquisitions, ventures, etc.

Business co-ownership and internal governance disputes and litigation, business divorces, buyouts and sales, merger and acquisition disputes, family, closely held and professional businesses, accountings, and audits, D&O, boards, audit committees and investigations. Legal authority, rights, duties, conflicts of interest, diligence, compliance, liability, BJR, legal risk management, and resolution.

Real property and financial and personal property breach of contract, and ownership and co-ownership disputes and litigation, and real property partition actions.

Trials.

Mediator and dispute and litigation resolution services.

Legal risk and uncertainty management processes – authority, rights, duties, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, liability, and resolution.

Other and additional disputes, litigation and issues that fall within the above areas – court and trial evidence, persuasion, debate and fallacies, using AI assistance, IP, meetings, defamation, risk management processes, workplace, new laws, regulations and government actions – impact/legality, law and legal matters in the news, etc.

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation, or as or for my opinions and views on the subject matter.

Also note – sometimes I include links to or comments about materials from other organizations or people – if I do so, it is because I believe that the materials are worthwhile reading or viewing; however, that does not mean that I do not or that I might not have a different view about some or even all of the subject matter or materials, or that I necessarily agree with, or agree with everything about or relating to, that organization or person, or those materials or the subject matter.

Please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My blogs are:

http://tateattorney.com – business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. – previously at http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Prior blog: Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing only as an attorney in California.

LLC member business law exam question – plus my undue influence eBook attached

The following is a sample LLC member business law exam question – (relating to the University business class that I taught), plus my undue influence eBook is attached below:

Mary and Julie form an LLC (limited liability company) in California and go into business together repairing Apple computers. The LLC is a member managed LLC and Mary and Julie sign an Operating Agreement. The Operating Agreement specifies that Mary and Julie are equal members. Everything starts out fine. But after about a year it is apparent that Julie is spending more time running and operating the business than Mary, and this causes a dispute between Mary and Julie.
1. Discuss Mary’s and Julie’s fiduciary duties and duties of loyalty as members, and how those duties might apply in this situation.
2. Discuss Mary’s and Julie’s managerial rights and duties to each other, and how those rights and duties apply in this situation.
3. Discuss Mary’s and Julie’s voting rights.

I have also attached below my undue influence in estate planning eBook, was it free will or foul play?

Undue Influence in Estate Planning eBook David Tate, Esq. final emailable June 17 2025 V6-smDownload

Best to you, David Tate, Esq.

Please reach out on this topic or on other topics if you wish.

* * * *

Thank you for viewing and reading this discussion. Please do pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested as it is only through collaboration and sharing that great things and success are more quickly achieved. If you are interested in discussing anything that I have said in the discussion above or in either of my two blogs (see blog addresses below), or if you simply want to reach out or are seeking assistance, it is best to reach me by email at dave@tateattorney.com.

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

Trust, estate, probate, power of attorney, fiduciary, beneficiary, conservatorship, and elder and dependent adult abuse litigation and contentious administrations, undue influence, fraud and deceit, physical and mental health and challenging and contentious personalities and relationships.

Trust, estate and probate administrations and litigation involving special assets such as business ownership interests and operating businesses, asset co-ownership disputes, contentious governance, intellectual property assets, art and collectible assets, ongoing future contractual rights, buyouts and sales, M&A disputes, businesses divorces, and accountings.

Businesses and third party disputes and litigation – contract, licensing, co-business, royalty and other arrangements, unfair business practices, fraud and deceit, lack of good faith and fair dealing, buyouts and sales, mergers, acquisitions, ventures, etc.

Business co-ownership and internal governance disputes and litigation, business divorces, buyouts and sales, merger and acquisition disputes, family, closely held and professional businesses, accountings, and audits, D&O, boards, audit committees and investigations. Legal authority, rights, duties, conflicts of interest, diligence, compliance, liability, BJR, legal risk management, and resolution.

Real property and financial and personal property ownership and co-ownership disputes and litigation.

Trials.

Mediator and dispute and litigation resolution services.

Legal risk and uncertainty management processes – authority, rights, duties, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, liability, and resolution.

Other and additional disputes, litigation and issues that fall within the above areas – court and trial evidence, persuasion, debate and fallacies, using AI assistance, IP, meetings, defamation, risk management processes, workplace, new laws, regulations and government actions – impact/legality, law and legal matters in the news, etc.

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation, or as or for my opinions and views on the subject matter.

Also note – sometimes I include links to or comments about materials from other organizations or people – if I do so, it is because I believe that the materials are worthwhile reading or viewing; however, that does not mean that I do not or that I might not have a different view about some or even all of the subject matter or materials, or that I necessarily agree with, or agree with everything about or relating to, that organization or person, or those materials or the subject matter.

Please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My blogs are:

http://tateattorney.com – business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. – previously at http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Prior blog: Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing only as an attorney in California.

What should you do if you have received a copy of a trust, a will, a deed, a power of attorney, account or other estate planning or transfer document – first consider whether it expresses the signer’s true wishes

You may have wondered what you should do when you first receive a copy of a trust or other estate planning or transfer document – well . . . as often, it depends on the specific facts and circumstances but here could be a plausible short answer – this and the following are not legal requirements, but they can be human factors and some could be possible:

  • Read the document.
  • Are its wording and provisions clear and understandable?
  • Does it cover all significant scenarios?
  • Are any of its wording or provisions contradictory?
  • Does it correctly express the signer’s true wishes?
  • Do you believe that the signer understood the wording and provisions? Do you understand the wording and provisions?
  • Is there evidence of forgery, fraud or deceit, undue influence, misrepresentation, concealment, omission, elder or dependent adult abuse, inducement by undue persuasion, dependency or reliance, or lack of legal capacity for the signer to legally and validly sign the document? You may also be required to consider legal presumptions and burdens of proof.
  • Is there evidence of a mistake in the document or that the document was signed under a circumstance of mistake or mistaken belief?

And the list is longer. You get the point that whether a document is valid, and whether select wording or provisions in the document are legally valid is determined by the facts and circumstance (the evidence), and the law including presumptions and burdens of proof. What you do in that circumstance depends on your options and on your authority, rights and duties or responsibilities. But you should consult with an attorney.

Best to you, David Tate, Esq.

Please reach out on this topic or on other topics if you wish.

* * * *

Thank you for viewing and reading this discussion. Please do pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested as it is only through collaboration and sharing that great things and success are more quickly achieved. If you are interested in discussing anything that I have said in the discussion above or in either of my two blogs (see blog addresses below), or if you simply want to reach out or are seeking assistance, it is best to reach me by email at dave@tateattorney.com.

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

Trust, estate, probate, power of attorney, fiduciary, beneficiary, conservatorship, and elder and dependent adult abuse litigation and contentious administrations, undue influence, fraud and deceit, physical and mental health and challenging and contentious personalities and relationships.

Trust, estate and probate administrations and litigation involving special assets such as business ownership interests and operating businesses, asset co-ownership disputes, contentious governance, intellectual property assets, art and collectible assets, ongoing future contractual rights, buyouts and sales, M&A disputes, businesses divorces, and accountings.

Businesses and third party disputes and litigation – contract, licensing, co-business, royalty and other arrangements, unfair business practices, fraud and deceit, lack of good faith and fair dealing, buyouts and sales, mergers, acquisitions, ventures, etc.

Business co-ownership and internal governance disputes and litigation, business divorces, buyouts and sales, merger and acquisition disputes, family, closely held and professional businesses, accountings, and audits, D&O, boards, audit committees and investigations. Legal authority, rights, duties, conflicts of interest, diligence, compliance, liability, BJR, legal risk management, and resolution.

Real property and financial and personal property ownership and co-ownership disputes and litigation.

Trials.

Mediator and dispute and litigation resolution services.

Legal risk and uncertainty management processes – authority, rights, duties, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, liability, and resolution.

Other and additional disputes, litigation and issues that fall within the above areas – court and trial evidence, persuasion, debate and fallacies, using AI assistance, IP, meetings, defamation, risk management processes, workplace, new laws, regulations and government actions – impact/legality, law and legal matters in the news, etc.

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation, or as or for my opinions and views on the subject matter.

Also note – sometimes I include links to or comments about materials from other organizations or people – if I do so, it is because I believe that the materials are worthwhile reading or viewing; however, that does not mean that I do not or that I might not have a different view about some or even all of the subject matter or materials, or that I necessarily agree with, or agree with everything about or relating to, that organization or person, or those materials or the subject matter.

Please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My blogs are:

http://tateattorney.com – business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. – previously at http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Prior blog: Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing only as an attorney in California.

The Business Law class topics – the following is a list of the 9 outlines of topics that I covered:

The Business Law class topics – the following is a list of the 9 outlines of topics that I covered:

First major topics – courts, jurisdiction, due process, standing, laws, legal research, constitution

Second major topics – legal forms of doing business, corporations, sole proprietorships, LLCs, partnerships, limited partnerships, LLPs, nonprofits

Third major topics – contracts and agreements

Fourth major topics – UCC, sale of goods, leases of goods or personal property, and related warranties

Fifth major topics – litigation, procedures, pleadings, discovery, evidence, testimony, demonstrative evidence, direct examination, cross-examination, burdens and presumptions, dispositive motions, dispute resolution, trials

Sixth major topics – agency, employer and employee, employment opportunity, and workplace

Seventh major topics – intellectual property; trade secret; patent; trademark, copyright, personal publicity, NIL

Eighth major topics – intentional torts and negligence, product and strict liability, criminal law and cybercrime

Ninth major topics – administrative law and regulatory agencies, consumer protection and product safety, environmental protection, antitrust law and unfair trade practices

* * * *

Thank you for viewing this discussion. Please do pass this blog and blog post and information to other people who would be interested as it is only through collaboration and sharing that great things and success are more quickly achieved. If you are interested in discussing anything that I have said in the discussion above or in either of my two blogs (see blog addresses below), or if you simply want to reach out or are seeking assistance, it is best to reach me by email at dave@tateattorney.com.

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

Trust, estate, probate, will, fiduciary and elder abuse disputes, litigation, trials and law – probate, trust, estate, will, power of attorney, elder abuse, real property and conservatorship disputes, conflicts and litigation, challenging and contentious administrations, and personalities, people and relationships, mental and physical health, limitations and capacity, undue influence and fraud; and and mediator services.

Business litigation and internal business and co-ownership disputes, litigation, trials and law, and contentious officer, director, board and audit and governance committee, D&O, conflict of interest, workplace, and governance disputes, conflicts and litigation; and mediator services. Legal authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, legal risk management, and personalities, people and relationships; and mediator services.

Governance, law, legal risk management processes, compliance and success, audits and auditing, internal controls, executive officers, boards, directors, audit and governance committees, investigations, publicity rights, AI, defamation and First Amendment, legislation, statutes and laws, regulations, and headline news, and issue, people and relationship effective meetings, discussions and deliberations, debates and debating, communications, and wording and use of words.

Real property disputes, litigation, trials and law – primarily co-ownership and joint-ownership disputes, conflicts and litigation, and sales and purchases that go wrong, and mediator services.

Mediator and mediator and dispute resolution services (evaluative and facilitative).

  • Trust, estate, probate, conservatorship, elder and dependent abuse, etc.
  • Business, breach of contract/commercial, owner, shareholder, investor, etc.
  • D&O, board, audit and governance committee, accountant and CPA related.
  • Other: workplace and employment, environmental, trade secret.
  • Law and legal issues relating to authority, duties, rights, conflicts of interest, governance, diligence, compliance, risk management, disputes, evidence, liability, litigation, and mediation and resolution services.

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation, or as or for my opinions and views on the subject matter.

Also note – sometimes I include links to or comments about materials from other organizations or people – if I do so, it is because I believe that the materials are worthwhile reading or viewing; however, that does not mean that I do not or that I might not have a different view about some or even all of the subject matter or materials, or that I necessarily agree with, or agree with everything about or relating to, that organization or person, or those materials or the subject matter.

Please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My two blogs are:

http://tateattorney.com – business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. – previously at http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing only as an attorney in California.