Author: Scripta Ad Astra Staff

How do you Choose the Right Lawyer?

By:

Katy Young

The answer to that question can determine whether you get proper representation or not. Most people have no understanding of how to choose a lawyer to represent them. Common ways to find an attorney are to ask friends or family for recommendations, use a lawyer referral service, or good old Google. Asking for a referral to an attorney can certainly help get you on the right track, but what do you do if you don’t know anyone who knows anyone? Lawyer referral services through local bar associations can be clunky to deal with, so most people search the internet. But what if the internet doesn’t know the answer?

Yes, believe it or not, sometimes the internet does not have the answer. That is especially true when you are experiencing a dispute. If you are having a business dispute, you might Google “business law” and your geographic area. If a real estate dispute, you might Google “real estate lawyer” plus your city. By the same token, many people experiencing employment disputes Google for “employment law” or “employment lawyer.” While these all seem like reasonable search terms, the problem is that Google doesn’t know the difference between a lawyer who handles disputes and a lawyer who does not. To get a more accurate result, you would have to search “business litigation” or “real estate litigator” to get to the kind of lawyer that handles disputes. The other kind of lawyer is a transactional lawyer, one who does not go into a courtroom, but Google results assume that’s what you mean when you search “business law.” Most people are not familiar with the differences between litigators and transactional attorneys. Google barely does and yields some imperfect results.

So the first step in choosing the right lawyer is determining what type of lawyer you need. Do you need a lawyer who handles disputes and goes to court (a litigator) or one who handles non-dispute work such as transactions, contract drafting, and regulatory advising (a transactional attorney)? Once you know, then you can refine your Google search. You will be able to search “business litigation attorney san Francisco” for example, and get to us. If you just search “business law San Francisco” you get a swath of results that include the kind of lawyer you don’t need. As a firm, we do not expend any resources on Google adwords because Google is so bad at this distinction. Any time we dedicated resources to search engine optimization to make it easier for clients to find us, we get inundated with phone calls from people who want us to draft a contract or advise them on regulations, which is not what we do. Ad Astra is solely dedicated to dispute work, we are ONLY litigators. We appreciate the ability to refer out that potential transactional business to our friends, thereby helping the potential client get to a lawyer that will be a better fit for them, but we stay in our lane…and we’re damn good at it, too.

Now that you know more than Google about the difference between types of lawyers, we hope you will find the right one for you. If it’s a fighter you need, give us a call. Otherwise, we’ll refer you to a friend.

Labor Commissioner Win!

As is the trend with her practice increasing in employment work, Katy Young handled her first-ever emergency basis Labor Commissioner hearing for an existing client. The client called at 9:00 PM on a Tuesday night and explained that her ex-business partner/father of her children checked the mail after a long delay and found a notice of a hearing set to happen the next morning at 9:00 AM. With the client frantic as to what to do, and Katy knowing that owners of the business would be personally liable for the employee’s $50,000 claim if they lost before the Labor Commissioner, Katy took immediate action. Our superstar employment law attorney Sean Gentry was not available for the hearing, so he and Katy immediately did a late-night strategy session to prepare. Katy appeared at the hearing on behalf of her client and settled the case that morning for a mere $2,500, broken down into five payments – a fraction of the cost of the original claim. The client was beyond thrilled – and Katy unlocked a new skill in covering emergency basis Labor Commissioner hearings!

Major Win Against Fraudulent Transfer Case

In a huge win, Ad Astra prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in a fraudulent transfer action. Our client has a judgment against him individually for claims involving a real estate transaction. His family has an irrevocable trust that holds most of the client’s family’s assets. He created the trust when his wife was alive and began the process before the claims in the real estate matter arose. The client and his wife completed the trust after the client’s and the judgment creditor’s claims were filed. Upon her death, the trust became irrevocable. The client’s wife sadly died of cancer during the pendency of the real estate arbitration, and it was her wish that her family’s assets be protected for their four children. Ultimately, the arbitrator found against the client who now has a judgment against him personally, but not his trust. He is neither the trustee nor the beneficiary of the irrevocable trust. He has a life estate in the home he resides in, but otherwise no interest in the trust. Those facts did not stop an aggressive plaintiff’s counsel from bringing the action.

In an effort to collect on its judgment from the arbitration, the judgment creditor first recorded abstracts of judgment from the underlying real estate arbitration on properties owned by the trust. Then, the creditor filed a separate lawsuit against the client claiming that he had transferred his assets to the family trust to avoid his obligations. Ad Astra conducted discovery and deposed the CEO of the judgment creditor. It became clear that the judgment creditor had nothing more than pure speculation as to why the client transferred the family’s property to an irrevocable trust. Using discovery responses and deposition testimony, Ad Astra was able to prove that there was no issue of fact to decide at trial since the judgment creditor plaintiff admittedly had no evidence. Pure speculation and conjecture will not a summary judgment motion overcome. The client is overjoyed at this milestone on his path to putting his disputes behind him. As for Ad Astra, we live for great results like this one!

Governor Approves PAGA Reform Proposal

The California Employee Civil Action Law Initiative was removed from the November 2024 ballot after Newsom and the state Congress, including the proponents of the initiative, reached a compromise. Initially, the original initiative dares to repeal the PAGA 2004 and replace it with the new law that would be known as the “Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act”. However, upon withdrawal of the initiative from the November 2024 Ballot, the Office of the Governor announces the following PAGA reform proposal, agreed upon by the Governor and the proponents/supporters of the aforementioned initiative. Essentially, the PAGA reform proposal includes three key features:

  1. New system of relief
    • Employers who are more proactive in complying with the labor code are treated with more grace (i.e. receives capped or lower penalties) than those who willfully violate Labor Codes.
    • Increased penalty allows higher compensation for the damaged/wrong parties; the employees receive 25-35% of the penalty.
    • In addition to monetary relief, the court can now grant injunctive relief to compel businesses to address/fix their violations.
  2. Efficient resolution process
    • Wronged employee must now bring in their own claim.
    • The scope of Labor Codes was expanded to allow business, especially small employers, to address more issues through LWDA instead of through aggressive litigation.
    • To prevent prolonged litigation, the employers can request for early evaluation and stay of the court proceeding, and the court may limit the scope of claims.
  3. Stronger state enforcement
    • DIR can expedite their hiring process so they can address claims more efficiently.

Implied Dedication of Real Property Subject of Three-Day Trial (in Santa Clara County)

Partner Geoffrey Murry recently tried a case in Santa Clara County Superior Court on the issue of implied public dedication of a portion of a client’s residential property in Saratoga, California. During a three-day bench trial, the parties presented evidence regarding use of the property as a public-access trail in the years prior to 1972, the early-1960s construction of the subdivision in which the property is located, planning commission requirements in advance of approval of a subdivision map, and other interesting details about the charming San Jose suburb dating back more than 50 years. It was a great experience for Geoffrey, who welcomes every opportunity to represent clients in unusual real estate-related disputes, particularly relating to use and occupation of property by third parties.

Protect Your Business: Tips on Website Privacy and Accessibility Compliance

With 2024 soon wrapping up, businesses of all shapes and sizes should be mindful to add website privacy and disability compliance to their list of New Years’ resolutions. In recent developments in California, a trend has emerged of consumers filing class action lawsuits against businesses for violations of California disability and privacy laws on their websites. This novel threat serves as a reminder to business owners to remain up to date with the latest compliance software and to stay vigilant in preventing the risk of litigation.

Lawsuits targeting businesses engaged in e-commerce have spiked significantly in the past few years. In 2023, 4,605 accessibility lawsuits were filed nationwide, representing nearly 42% increase compared to 2022, a trend that persisted in 2024. These lawsuits, typically filed under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, allege that consumer-facing websites constitute “public accommodations” within the definition of Title III of the ADA, and target businesses whose website(s) discriminate against persons with disabilities allegedly failing to provide sufficient accessibility components.

A similar trend has emerged with plaintiffs filing lawsuits against businesses for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. These lawsuits claim that the software installed on business websites acts as an illegal “pen register,” which is a device or a process that record or decode dialing, routing, addressing, signaling information. Plaintiffs in these suits typically claim that these businesses’ websites deploy pen register scripts which track and monitor consumers’ online activity across multiple browsing sessions, and wrongfully collect, store, or aggregate users’ personally identifiable information.

Even meritless lawsuits can prove to be incredibly costly and burdensome for businesses of all sizes and in all industries. To mitigate or avoid the risk of litigation, businessowners can take certain measures to ensure their websites are ADA compliant, accessible, AND in line with California privacy laws:

  • Subscribe and install an ADA-compliance software program on the company’s website which provides accessibility components for individuals with audible and visual impairments and conduct regular audits of the website to identify any accessibility-compliance gaps;
  • Add a cookie opt-out notification banner to the company’s homepage with options to (1) accept all cookies; (2) decline all cookies, or (3) allow the user to manage cookie preferences, linking to a separate page to allow the user to select the types of cookies to which they consent, and;
  • Identify and audit any tracking scripts installed on a business’s website to assess what type of information those scripts are collecting and to ensure no personally identifiable information is collected.

This list is just an example of some of the steps businessowners can take to ensure their websites are legally compliant and to help avoid the risk of litigation. Businessowners should retain counsel to fully assess their risk and exposure to litigation and to help tailor each business’s website to ensure full compliance.

TTAB Trial Win for Jack Herer Trademark

After a long-fought battle before the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (TTAB), Katy Young prevailed at trial which secured the client’s right to register four (4) trademarks. The client is a business run by the son of late famous hemp activist Jack Herer. The dispute was about who has the rights to Jack Herer’s name and signature. The client had filed four trademark applications, all using Jack Herer’s name: one for an online shop, one for t-shirts, one for smoker’s articles, and another for smoker’s articles but using Jack’s signature instead of being a word mark only. The son of Jack Herer’s former girlfriend filed trademark oppositions for all four applications, claiming that he has a contract that gives him all rights to Jack Herer’s name, likeness, and signature. At trial, the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board found that he had not met his burden to prove the existence of a contract that gave him such rights. The client is thrilled to be able to register and use their trademarks.

Landlord Recovers Rents in Commercial Unlawful Detainer

The client, a landlord of a large warehouse in Berkeley, leased a commercial building to a famous cannabis dispensary as that company planned to expand operations. As has happened with many cannabis businesses in California, the expansion plans had to be shelved due to crushing tax liability that the tenant faced (thanks to IRS section 280e!). IRS section 280e says that to the extent a business deals in schedule 1 controlled substances (like cannabis), the business may only deduct the cost of goods sold. 280e has created massive tax liability for most cannabis businesses. Dispensaries face steep competition from the unregulated market as well. The tenant could not pay, and our landlord client brought a commercial unlawful detainer action. The matter was settled after sending the first set of discovery requests. Our landlord client has their building back and can now try to lease to another to raise funds. The client is satisfied with the outcome, though frustrated with the cannabis industry at large and will likely never lease to a cannabis business ever again!

Malicious Prosecution Settled!

Katy Young settled a malicious prosecution action in favor of our client. The client was scheduled for trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court on December 19, 2022 against Defendants for breach of contract and fraud. Defendants had a cross-complaint on file as well. On December 5, Defendants unexpectedly filed an entirely new action in Federal Court, alleging causes of action that should have been brought in their cross-complaint in state court. Ad Astra got the federal case dismissed on the first motion. 

A few months later, Defendants filed a new state court action against our client, again for causes of action that should have been in their cross-complaint in the main case. The new case went to a different judge than the one handling the main case. Ad Astra moved that the cases be related and assigned to the judge in the main case. The court agreed, and the cases were related and moved to the main judge’s court. Upon relating the cases, Defendants dismissed their second state court action. 

Upon prevailing at trial in the main case, the client brought a malicious prosecution action against the Defendants for wrongfully filing two other cases in an effort to harass her and diminish her capability of prosecuting her claims in the main case. The lawyer for the Defendants was named as a defendant in the malicious prosecution case. Insurance defense counsel came in to defend the lawyer and offered a good settlement after some effort on Ad Astra’s part. The client feels vindicated and appreciated our tireless efforts to represent her interests.

California School District Wins Settlement Against Insurance Broker for Breach of Contract

Ad Astra represented a California school district in claims against its insurance broker for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. Within the weeks of careful negotiations with the insurance defense counsel, Ad Astra’s Courtney Chu successfully demonstrated the liability on the Defendant’s part. The parties agreed to mediation and settled the same day for an amount that the school district happily accepted. In closing the matter, the client expresses gratitude to the Ad Astra team, “Working with this team was an outstanding experience. Their professionalism, responsiveness, and genuine care for public education made a complex process feel manageable and even uplifting. We’re grateful for their support and highly recommend their services to other school districts.” Great job, Courtney!