Weitere ähnliche Inhalte Mehr von Financial Poise (20) Kürzlich hochgeladen (20) Best Practice Regarding Technology 20193. The material in this webinar is for informational purposes only. It
should not be considered legal, financial or other professional
advice. You should consult with an attorney or other appropriate
professional to determine what may be best for your individual
needs. While Financial Poise™ takes reasonable steps to ensure
that information it publishes is accurate, Financial Poise™ makes
no guaranty in this regard.
DISCLAIMER
3
4. MEET THE FACULTY
MODERATOR:
Michelle Gershfeld Law Office of Michelle Gershfeld
PANELISTS:
Robert Michaels Goldstein & McClintock
Kathryn Nadro Sugar Felsenthal Grais & Helsinger
Ralph Preite Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP
4
5. ABOUT THIS WEBINAR
Technology is rapidly changing the way that lawyers and businesses interact (e.g. email; data rooms). This creates new and different challenges to
confidentiality, attorney-client privilege and the creation of a detailed record of negotiations and interactions. This webinar will describe the
problems and some solutions that arise out of the changing manner and pace of business law practice.
This webinar will also cover several ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The panelists will examine ABA Model Rule 1.1 and specifically
discuss Comment 8’s recommendation that “to maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and
its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology…” Model Rule 1.6 requires the attorney to perform “reasonable
efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.”
This requirement will be examined in light of the special concerns presented by the use of technology. The panelists will also address Comment
18 to Model Rule 1.6 and explore “reasonableness” judged by “sensitivity of the information, likelihood of disclosure if additional safeguards are
not employed, the cost of employing additional safeguards and the extent to which safeguards adversely affect the lawyer’s ability to represent
clients (e.g., software that is excessively difficult to use).
Further, this webinar will examine ABA Model Rule 5.1 and 5.2 and the requirement that the attorney must make “reasonable efforts” to ensure
that the firm conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The panel will also explore the requirement that lawyers supervising other attorneys
shall make “reasonable efforts” to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Finally, the panel will examine ABA Model Rule 5.3 and its requirement that lawyers with direct supervisory authority over nonlawyers must
make “reasonable efforts” to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer, Also, the panel will
explore Comment 2 to Rule 5.3.
5
6. ABOUT THIS SERIES
Corporate scandals make the headlines periodically, but businesses and the lawyers that work with
them face ethical challenges every day, even in situations that are legally compliant. This webinar
series examines ethical issues confronted by businesses in a variety of contexts, from so called
“grey areas” to those involving outright corruption. The panels consider and recommend different
approaches to ethical decision-making and the lawyer's role in advising business clients.
Each episode is delivered in Plain English understandable to business owners and executives
without much background in these areas. Yet, each episode is proven to be valuable to seasoned
professionals. As with all Financial Poise Webinars, each episode in the series brings you into
engaging, sometimes humorous, conversations designed to entertain as it teaches. And, as with all
Financial Poise Webinars, each episode in the series is designed to be viewed independently of the
other episodes, so that participants will enhance their knowledge of this area whether they attend
one, some, or all of the episodes.
6
7. Dates shown are premiere dates; all episodes will be available on demand after
their premiere date.
EPISODES IN THIS SERIES
Episode#1 Best Practice Regarding Technology 2/13/2019
Episode#2 Hot Off the Press- Recent Cases & Decisions 3/13/2019
Episode#3 How to Avoid Malpractice & Disciplinary Actions – 4/10/2019
General DOs and DON’Ts
7
9. ..,,,
TECHNOLOGY-RELATED COMPETENCE
OF AN ATTORNEY
• Key Authorities
• RPC* 1.1 Competence, comment 8
✓ In this comment to the competence rule, attorneys are directed that they
should keep abreast of the benefits and risks of technology.
• RPC 1.6 Confidentiality of Information
✓ Lawyers are obligated to take reasonable steps to prevent inadvertent
and unauthorized disclosure of or unauthorized access to client
confidences.
✓ Comments 18 & 19 – These comments contain general advice regarding
acting reasonably to protect confidential client information.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 9
10. ..,,,
TECHNOLOGY-RELATED COMPETENCE
OF AN ATTORNEY (cont’d)
• ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 477R
✓ This formal Ethics Opinion addresses a number of technology-related
competence issues for attorneys.
*Throughout this PowerPoint, “RPC” refers to rule of professional conduct as
numbered in the vast majority of jurisdictions.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 10
11. ..,,,
STORAGE AND COMMUNICATION OF
CLIENT INFORMATION
• Overview: Act Reasonably
• No hard and fast rules about encryption, firewalls, passwords, or other
measures
• Formal Ethics Opinion 477R
✓ Adopt a Process to:
▪ Assess risk
▪ Determine responsive security measures
▪ Verify effective implementation, and
▪ Update your approach in light of developments
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 11
12. ..,,,
STORAGE AND COMMUNICATION OF
CLIENT INFORMATION (cont’d)
• Assess Risks: Understand the Threats to Data – Especially Electronic Data
– In Its Various Locations
✓ Such as: unauthorized access; unauthorized disclosure; viruses;
document transfer to portable devices (and subsequent loss)
• Act Reasonably in Determining Default Rules for Data Storage Locations
and Communication Methods
✓ See generally RPC 1.1, 1.6
✓ Act Reasonably when using Cloud Computing and Storage
▪ More information at the next slide
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 12
13. ..,,,
STORAGE AND COMMUNICATION OF
CLIENT INFORMATION (cont’d)
• Evaluate When Additional Measures Are Needed to Protect Client
Information
✓ Comment 18 and 19 to RPC 1.6 Confidentiality of Information
encourage lawyers to consider:
▪ Sensitivity of information
▪ Likelihood of disclosure if additional safeguards are not employed
▪ The cost of employing additional safeguards
▪ The difficulty of implementing the safeguards, and
▪ The extent to which the safeguards adversely affect the lawyer’s
ability to represent clients.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 13
14. ..,,,
CLOUD COMPUTING AND STORAGE
• Ethics Opinions in 20 states
✓ States: Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa,
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Nevada North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin
✓ Compilation of rules is available at:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/departments_offices/legal_technol
ogy_resources/resources/charts_fyis/cloud-ethics-chart.html
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 14
15. ..,,,
CLOUD COMPUTING AND STORAGE (cont’d)
• Bottom Line: Reasonable care standard
• Common themes:
✓ exercise care in selecting vendor;
✓ review terms of service;
✓ ensure that vendor protects confidentiality and access;
✓ investigate security measures and any security lapses
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 15
16. ..,,,
INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF
CONFIDENTIAL CLIENT INFORMATION
• Ethical and Legal Implications for Sending Attorneys
• Act reasonably to prevent inadvertent disclosure
✓ RPC 1.1 competence; RPC 1.6(c) confidentiality. Comment [18] adds
that Rule 1.6 is not violated if disclosure occurs despite an attorney’s
reasonable efforts
• Common instances: in discovery and in electronic communication with
opposing counsel
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 16
17. ..,,,
INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF
CONFIDENTIAL CLIENT INFORMATION
(cont’d)
• Ethical and Legal Implications for Sending Attorneys
• Prevention
✓ Privilege Review (in litigation)
✓ Care in Using Email, such as checking email addressing before sending and
marking privileged documents privileged
• Planning
✓ Clawback Agreements and Orders - Fed. R. Evid. 502
▪ Do not borrow standard from Fed. R. Evid. 502(b)
▪ Seek client informed consent. Why?
• Acting Reasonably to Mitigate the Damage When Inadvertent Disclosure
Inevitably Occurs
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 17
18. ..,,,
INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF
CONFIDENTIAL CLIENT INFORMATION
(cont’d)
• Ethical and Legal Obligations of Receiving Attorneys
• RPC 4.4(b) or Case Law
✓ “Notice only” approach – this is the Model Rules approach followed by
the majority of states
✓ “Notice+” approach – a receiving attorney must provide notice to the
sender and take other steps to protect the confidential information
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 18
19. ..,,,
INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF
CONFIDENTIAL CLIENT INFORMATION
(cont’d)
• Ethical and Legal Obligations of Receiving Attorneys
• In civil litigation in federal court, FRCP 26(b)(5)(B), Fed. R. Evid. 502,
clawback agreements, and case law should also be considered.
✓ If the document was disclosed in discovery, the receiving attorney will
have to protect the confidentiality of the document in the short term but
may decide to seek a court ruling that the privilege was waived, which
will turn on the clawback agreement or order (if there is one) or the
court’s application of the waiver standard found in Fed. R. Evid. 502(b).
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 19
20. ..,,,
METADATA
• Ethics Opinions Concerning Recipient Review of Opponent’s Metadata
✓ ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 06-442 – provides that recipient review
turns on whether the disclosure was “inadvertent”
✓ Several states have issued ethics opinions on the permissibility of
reviewing opponent metadata; they are split, with some permitting it (but
noting additional obligations if sent inadvertently) and others prohibiting
it.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 20
21. ..,,,
METADATA (cont’d)
• Competence and the Duty to Prevent Disclosure of Confidences in
Metadata
✓ RPC 1.6
✓ ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 06-442 and various state ethics opinions
suggest steps that can be taken to avoid disclosing confidences in
metadata
• Metadata and Discovery – metadata is often relevant, so it is not an answer
to remove all metadata in a document production.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 21
22. ..,,,
FORMATION OF THE ATTORNEY CLIENT
RELATIONSHIP
• Implications of attorney website that prompts visitors to submit legal
questions.
• RPC 1.18 – lawyer owes a prospective client defined duties
✓ Whether someone who provides information to a lawyer is a
“prospective client” generally turns on whether the lawyer invited
submission of the information without appropriate disclaimers
✓ Confidentiality obligation for disclosed information
✓ Limitations on the ability of a lawyer to represent an adverse party in the
same or substantially related matter
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 22
23. ..,,,
FORMATION OF THE ATTORNEY CLIENT
RELATIONSHIP (cont’d)
• Ethical limitations on electronic solicitation by lawyers.
• RPC 7.3 addresses solicitation of clients.
• Generally no real time solicitation if the motive is pecuniary gain.
• For other electronic solicitations, lawyers must satisfy other requirements of
a state’s version of RPC 7.3, such as including words like “Advertising
Material.”
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 23
24. ..,,,
FORMATION OF THE ATTORNEY CLIENT
RELATIONSHIP (cont’d)
• Ethical limitations on internet-based third party referral services.
• NY State Bar Association Ethics Opinion 1132 (8/8/17) – Attorneys paying
a marketing fee to Avvo amounts to paying for a recommendation, which is
prohibited by NY RPC 7.2(a).
✓ NY RPC 7.2(a) provides “A lawyer shall not compensate or give
anything of value to a person or organization to recommend or obtain
employment by a client, or as a reward for having made a
recommendation resulting in employment by a client.”
✓ When using Avvo, a prospective client reviews attorneys (and ratings) in
specialty areas and can purchase a package that includes advice from the
lawyer.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 24
25. ..,,,
FORMATION OF THE ATTORNEY CLIENT
RELATIONSHIP (cont’d)
✓ Avvo pays participating attorneys all fees generated by the attorney the
previous month and deducts a “marketing fee.”
✓ The Opinion reasons that the Avvo attorney rating is a
recommendation. The opinion states that the conclusion is bolstered by
Avvo’s “satisfaction guarantee” which refunds the client’s payment
(including Avvo’s portion of the fee) if the client is not satisfied.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 25
26. ..,,,
ETHICAL LIMITS ON BLOGGING LAWYERS
• Blog posts may be considered advertisements that must comply with
advertising RPCs. See, e.g., Hunter v. Virginia State Bar ex rel. Third District
Committee, 744 S.E.3d 611 (Va. 2013)
✓ RPC 7.1 - must not be false or misleading
✓ RPC 7.2 – must comply with requirements of this rule, which vary from
state to state.
✓ RPC 7.4 – must not communicate fields of specialization except to the
extent doing so is consistent with the requirements of the jurisdiction’s rule
(which varies from state to state)
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 26
27. ..,,,
ETHICAL LIMITS ON BLOGGING LAWYERS
(cont’d)
• Attorney bloggers must not reveal confidential information, which is broadly
defined in most states as information relating to the representation of the
client. RPC 1.6.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 27
28. ..,,,
ATTORNEYS AND SOCIAL MEDIA
• Attorney misuse of social media.
• Rules that may be implicated
✓ RPC 8.4(c) – misconduct to engage in conduct involving “dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”
✓ RPC 8.4(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice.
✓ RPC 8.4(g) engage in harassment or discrimination
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 28
29. ..,,,
ATTORNEYS AND SOCIAL MEDIA (cont’d)
• Attorney misuse of social media.
• Recent cases:
✓ Discipline sought against an Illinois attorney who created fake
match.com account and took other actions online to harass opposing
counsel.
✓ Discipline sought against New York attorneys took photos in a
courtroom (in violation of the rules of the court) and posted the photos
and commentary on social media.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 29
30. ..,,,
ATTORNEYS AND SOCIAL MEDIA (cont’d)
• Attorneys “friending” opposing parties, witnesses, or prospective jurors on
social media
• A lawyer is prohibited from communicating with a person represented
by counsel. RPC 4.2
• It is also a violation of professional conduct rules for a lawyer to ask
someone else (like a secretary or paralegal) to do what the lawyer is
prohibited from doing under the rules. RPC 5.3(c) and 8.4(a)
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 30
31. ..,,,
ATTORNEYS AND SOCIAL MEDIA (cont’d)
• Even if the contact is not otherwise prohibited, if the lawyer falsely states
her identity in making a friend request, that would violate RPC 4.1
which prohibits lawyers making false statements of material fact
• Recent case: ethics charges filed against a Pennsylvania prosecutor who
set up a fake Facebook account – and encouraged staff to use the
account – to “friend” defendants in pending cases.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 31
32. ..,,,
ATTORNEYS AND SOCIAL MEDIA (cont’d)
• Attorneys responding to negative reviews by clients.
• Attorneys must not reveal confidential information (i.e., information related
to the representation of the client) in response to an online review.
✓ This can occur even if the client’s name is not used
• Those who do will face discipline for RPC 1.6 violation.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 32
33. ..,,,
ATTORNEYS AND SOCIAL MEDIA (cont’d)
• Strategies for responding professionally, without revealing confidential
information.
✓ Stay away from information about the client, facts of the case, and your
interactions with the client.
✓ State your desire for clients to be pleased with your representation.
✓ Express your disappointment that this client is not pleased with your
service.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 33
34. ..,,,
CLIENTS AND SOCIAL MEDIA
• Client privilege waiver through online posts
• Attorney client privilege requires a confidential communication. If the
content of that communication is intentionally revealed by a client in an
online post, privilege is waived.
• Work product protection also can be waived through disclosure.
• Competent attorneys should protect the privilege by discussing these issues
with clients, providing memorable examples.
• Examples:
✓ Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 2010 WL 4286329 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22,
2010).
✓ Kintera v. Convio, Inc., 219 F.R.D. 503 (S.D. Cal. 2003).
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 34
35. ..,,,
TRAVELING ABROAD AND PRESERVING
PRIVILEGE AT THE BORDER
• There is no 4th Amendment requirement of “probable cause” at the
border.
• To preserve the attorney client privilege and confidential client information
on a laptop or other device, it is unclear exactly what must be done.
• At a minimum, if a border officer asks to access information on your laptop
or other device, you should assert the attorney-client privilege and identify
the device as containing confidential information.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 35
36. ..,,,
TRAVELING ABROAD AND PRESERVING
PRIVILEGE AT THE BORDER
• If the officer asks for your passwords, ask if that is an order or a request. If
it is a request, decline, based on the privilege. If it is an order, ask to speak
to a supervisor and ask that they limit their access to the confidential
information.
• The touchstone is that you do all that you reasonably can to assert the
privilege and avoid disclosure but, in the end, you must comply with a
lawful demand to search.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 36
37. ..,,,
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION MODEL RULE
1.6: CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
Client-Lawyer Relationship
(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a
client unless the client
gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry
out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).
(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to
the extent the
lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
(1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 37
38. ..,,,
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION MODEL RULE
1.6: CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
(cont’d)
(2) to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain
to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in
furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer's services;
(3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or
property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the
client's commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used
the lawyer's services;
(4) to secure legal advice about the lawyer's compliance with these Rules;
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 38
39. ..,,,
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION MODEL RULE
1.6: CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
(cont’d)
(5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy
between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or
civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was
involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's
representation of the client;
(6) to comply with other law or a court order; or
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 39
40. ..,,,
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION MODEL RULE
1.6: CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
(cont’d)
(7) to detect and resolve conflicts of interest arising from the lawyer’s change of
employment or from changes in the composition or ownership of a firm, but
only if the revealed information would not compromise the attorney-client
privilege or otherwise prejudice the client.
(c) A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or
unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to
the representation of a client.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 40
41. ..,,,
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION MODEL RULE
1.6: CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
(cont’d)
Comment 18 – “reasonableness” judged by “sensitivity of the information,
likelihood of disclosure if additional safeguards are not employed, the cost of
employing additional safeguards and the extent to which safeguards adversely
affect the lawyer’s ability to represent clients (e.g., software that is excessively
difficult to use).”
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 41
42. ..,,,
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION MODEL
RULE 1.8
• Comment 8: to maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should
keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits
and risks associated with relevant technology…”
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 42
43. ..,,,
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION MODEL
RULE 5.1, 5.2
Responsibilities of partners, managers, and supervisory lawyers:
• Lawyers must make “reasonable efforts” to ensure that the firm conforms
to the Rules of Professional Conduct
• Lawyers supervising other attorneys shall make “reasonable efforts” to
ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional
Conduct.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 43
44. ..,,,
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION MODEL
RULE 5.3
• Responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance
• Lawyers with direct supervisory authority over nonlawyers must make
“reasonable efforts” to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with
the professional obligations of the lawyer
• Comment 2: “A lawyer must give such assistants appropriate instruction and
supervision concerning the ethical aspects of their employment, particularly
regarding the obligation not to disclose information relating to the
representation of the client, and should be responsible for their work
product.”
• This means no using unsecured wifi for client matters!
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 44
45. ABOUT THE FACULTY
MICHELLE GERSHFELD, ESQ.
MGershfeldlaw@gmail.com
Michelle Gershfeld is a bankruptcy attorney, debt negotiator and personal financial
life coach who advises people who are in debt, or building wealth, by identifying and
overcoming obstacles that lie in their path to securing worry-free, financial wellness.
She works with clients individually to create a strategic, customized plan for each
unique financial situation; tackling challenges while defining actionable steps that will
increase awareness, change behaviors and lead to the fulfillment of long-term financial
goals.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 45
46. ABOUT THE FACULTY
ROBERT MICHAELS
robm@goldmclaw.com
Rob is a partner at Goldstein & McClintock, LLP. At G&M, Mr. Michaels works with attorneys who have
hailed from top law firms around the country, all of whom regularly represent sophisticated clients in a wide
variety of commercial matters. Yet at the same time, Mr. Michaels’ clients will immediately benefit from the
greater affordability, accessibility, and individual attention of a boutique law practice.
Rob counsels and litigates for clients in a wide variety of complex commercial litigation matters, including
fraud, RICO, shareholder disputes, professional liability and other claims arising from corporate looting and
insolvencies, as well as a range of software and technology matters. Rob has practiced in state and federal
courts around the country and has successfully argued a number of federal appeals.
Before joining RCC, Rob was a Staff Attorney and Project Director at the Environmental Law and Policy
Center of the Midwest, a Bigelow Teaching Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School, an associate at
Mayer Brown, and a law clerk for a federal district court judge.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 46
47. ABOUT THE FACULTY
KATHRYN NADRO
knadro@sfgh.com
Kathryn Nadro is an associate with Sugar Felsenthal Grais & Helsinger where she
works with the Labor & Employment and Commercial Litigation practice
groups. Kathryn's practice focuses on representing companies and individuals in
commercial litigation as well as employment and labor matters.
Kathryn has broad experience defending companies in contract, fiduciary duty and
trademark litigation in state and federal court. Her successful representations include
favorable resolutions for her clients in both pre-trial proceedings and at
trial. Additionally, Kathryn counsels clients on employment and labor issues,
including discrimination claims, executive compensation disputes and worker's
compensation claims.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 47
48. ABOUT THE FACULTY
RALPH PRIETE
rp@preite.us
RALPH E. PREITE, ESQ. is a partner with the NY law firm, Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP,
focusing on bankruptcy, corporate finance, securities law, and related litigation. He has also
served as a registered NY lobbyist. Mr. Preite's clients include banks, securities firms, funds,
shipping companies, real estate developers and Trustees. Mr. Preite has served as a federal
judicial law clerk to a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge in the EDNY, a legal commentator on television
regarding bankruptcy matters, and as a NYS Supreme Court referee and court arbitrator. Mr.
Preite has served as trustee of a 501(c)(3) educational foundation, and chaired several of its
committees. Mr. Preite holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Economics from New York University,
and Juris Doctorate from New York Law School.
© 2019 by DailyDAC, LLC d/b/a Financial Poise Webinars™ 48
49. The material in this presentation is for general educational
purposes only.
It has been prepared primarily for attorneys and accountants for
use in the pursuit of their continuing legal education and continuing
professional education.
IMPORTANT NOTES
49
50. If you have any questions about this webinar that you did
not get to ask during the live premiere, or if you are watching this
webinar on demand, please don’t hesitate to email us at:
info@financialpoise.com
Please include the name of the webinar in your email,
and we will provide a response to your question.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
50
51. To receive Financial Poise’s DACyak, our free weekly e-newsletter,
just send an email to:
info@financialpoise.com
Please add the message, “Subscribe Please” to your email, or add
yourself by going to:
https://www.financialpoise.com/newsletter/
Subscribers are eligible to receive discounts and giveaways from time to
time, and subscriber emails are never sold to or shared with third parties. 51
52. About Financial Poise™
www.financialpoise.com
DailyDAC LLC, d/b/a Financial Poise™ provides continuing education to
attorneys, accountants, business owners and executives, and investors. Its
websites, webinars, and books provide Plain English, entertaining,
explanations about legal, financial, and other subjects of interest to these
audiences.
52