Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  11040-11046 displayed

1  1576 1577 1578 1579 1580  3627

---

Halloran & Sage LLP

H&S Attorney presents awards to Local Judges
Halloran & Sage Attorney Laura Pascale Zaino recently presented Judges John M. Walker, Jr., Justice Joette Katz and Judge Thomas A. Bishop awards recognizing their involvement as panelists in a recent Appellate Advocacy discussion presented by the CBA Young Lawyers Section Appellate Practice Committee and UConn Law School.

The panel of judges fielded questions from both Professor Paul Bader, director of the Moot Court at the University of Connecticut School of Law, and more than 200 first-year law students and YLS section members. They shared their expertise on a breadth of appellate advocacy topics, providing observations on how lawyers can best serve their clients in the court of appeals.

The judges weighed in on such issues as the importance of conciseness in brief writing and the best manner in which to handle judges’ questions during oral arguments. Young lawyers and law students in attendance sought the panel’s opinions on the role of technology in the appellate courtroom, how best to state the facts in a particularly complex case, and how judges weigh the arguments mounted in written briefs versus those presented in oral argument. Though the discussion and opinions covered much ground in the area of appellate advocacy, all three judges reiterated one significant point throughout: that preparation, confidence, and absolute mastery of the case record are the most important and powerful things an attorney can wield in their courtrooms.

01-31-2007

---

Hatch & Parent, LC

Court of Appeal Strikes Down State Board’s Annual Fees For Water Right Permits and Licenses
In the recent case California Farm Bureau Federation, et al. v. California State Water Resources Control Board, the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District declared unconstitutional the annual fees imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board beginning in 2004 on two types of water users: holders of
water right permits and licenses, and federal contractors entitled to water from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

The roots of this case lay in the passage of Senate Bill 1049 (2003), codified in part at Water Code sections 1525, 1540 and 1560. This bill eliminated state funding
for the State Board’s Division of Water Rights regulatory activities, including the processing of applications and changes to existing permits and licenses, as well as
enforcement, thereby forcing the State Board to assess fees on all permitted water right holders. The Farm Bureau, Northern California Water Association (NCWA), and Central Valley Project Water Association (CVPWA) opposed the fees and sued to enjoin the State Board for imposing them.

On January 17, the Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of the Water Code provisions authorizing the State Board to impose fees on water right holders,but struck down the fee schedule formulas adopted by the State Board to implement that authority. The problem, according to the Court, was the State Board’s formula for calculating the annual fees, which allowed the State Board to charge the greater of $100 or three cents per acre-foot for the total annual amount of diversion authorized by the permit or license, regardless of whether that total quantity
of water was actually available for diversion. The Court held the State Board had failed to demonstrate that the fees imposed on the permit and license holders bore “a fair or reasonable relationship” to the cost of regulating permittees and licensees because the funds collected were used to support regulatory activities not related to the water rights recognized by permits or licenses.

The immediate effect of the Court’s ruling in this case is that the State Board has 180 days from the day the opinion becomes final (which will be February 16 unless the State Board petitions for reconsideration or review of the decision) to adopt valid fee schedule formulas and determine the amount of fees improperly assessed during the 2003-2004 fiscal year. After the State Board has calculated what refunds may be due, the State Board of Equalization will refund any annual fees unlawfully collected to those parties who filed timely petitions for reconsideration of their fee with the State Board, or who are subject to the January 20, 2004 stipulation between NCWA, CVPWA, the State Board and Board of Equalization.

If you or your organization hold a water right permit or license issued by the State Board, you may be eligible for a refund if you filed a petition for reconsideration with the State Boar , or if you are a member of the Farm Bureau, NCWA or CVPWA. Permittees and licensees who paid the State Board fees without petitioning for reconsideration, even if paid under protest, are most likely not eligible for refunds. Given the short time frame for the State Board to formulate a new fee structure, the impact of this ruling will be felt very soon, and every permit and license holder will be affected.

Unfortunately, an additional effect of this decision may be a further reduction in funding for the State Board, thereby exacerbating already significant delays in the processing of water right matters. Hatch and Parent will continue monitoring the State Board’s regulatory activities for the results of this decision.

Hatch & Parent’s Water Practice Group will continue to monitor this case and other State Board fee issues. For more detailed information on whether you may qualify for a refund, please contact Wes Strickland at (805) 963-7000 or trickland@HatchParent.com, or Morgan Evans at (805) 963-7000 or Evans@HatchParent.com.

01-31-2007

---

Hatch & Parent, LC

Hatch & Parent names new Partners and Senior Associate.
Robin Lewis, Carolyn Rhoades, and Lisabeth Rothman have been named partners in Hatch & Parent, one of the largest land use and water law practices in California. Susannah Mitchell is now a senior associate.

Ms. Lewis focuses her practice on real estate, land use, eminent domain, and environmental quality litigation.

Ms. Rhoades is part of the environmental quality practice group and focuses on complex, high-exposure environmental litigation involving soil and groundwater contamination.

Ms. Rothman is one of the state’s experts on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and focuses her practice on real estate, environmental and land use law for the development and real estate industries and public agencies.

Ms. Mitchell’s practice focuses on complex environmental litigation and eminent domain, representing clients before both federal and state regulatory agencies on a variety of environmental issues.

"Each of these attorneys play a vital role in ensuring quality client legal advice and
representation," says Rob Saperstein, Hatch & Parent managing partner. "I'm honored to have them on our team."

With offices in Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Diego, Sacramento, and South Lake Tahoe, Hatch & Parent represents public and private entities on land use, water resources and strategic planning throughout the state. The other core practice areas of the firm include corporate and tax, complex litigation, public agency, environmental quality and compliance, trusts and estates, appellate law and legislative advocacy. Its website address is: www.hatchparent.com.

01-31-2007

---

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C.

Russell Ford Speaks on I-9 Issues and Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Mintz Levin attorney Russell Ford spoke on I-9 issues and comprehensive immigration reform on January 31, 2007 at the Taunton Area Chamber of Commerce, Taunton, MA.

Russell is an associate in the Boston office, where he practices in the Immigration section. His practice focuses on representing higher education, sports teams and professionals, and public and private companies.

01-31-2007

---

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Katten Muchin Rosenman Represents Newkirk Realty Trust in Completion of Merger
The law firm of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is pleased to have served as legal counsel to Newkirk Realty Trust, a NYSE listed real estate investment trust (REIT) with a diversified portfolio of single-tenant net-leased properties, in the completion of its recent merger with Lexington Realty Trust. The combined company (NYSE: LXP) is believed to be the largest publicly traded, single tenant-focused REIT in the U.S.

Mark I. Fisher, a New York-based partner in Katten’s Corporate Practice, acted as lead counsel for Newkirk. Additional members of the Firm’s legal team that were involved in the transaction included partners Elliot Press and Jill E. Darrow, special counsel Tania Balthazaar, and associates Michael H. Williams, Audrey Chen, Gabrielle Lawlor, Christine Terlep and Jarrod Weber, all of the New York office.

With the completion of the merger, the combined company now has ownership interests in approximately 365 properties, located in 44 U.S. states and The Netherlands. These properties contain an aggregate of approximately 58.8 million net rentable square feet of space, more than 97 percent of which is subject to a lease.

Katten’s Corporate Practice encompasses mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, public and private debt and equity offerings, public company representation, REIT formation, institutional lending, securitizations, leveraged leasing, structured finance, start-up and venture capital financing, leveraged buy-outs, joint ventures and other strategic alliances, real estate finance, partnership tender offers and roll-ups and proxy contests.

01-31-2007

---

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Partner Samson Helfgott Quoted by Inside Counsel on PTO Proposal
Samson Helfgott, a partner in the Firm's Intellectual Property Practice, was quoted in Inside Counsel on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's proposal to create new patent products to quicken the patent process and save money for applicants (Novel Ideas; PTO Proposes a New Suite of Patent Products to Streamline Applications, January 2007) and the benefits of standardizing patent rules to promote work-sharing between patent offices (A Better Alternative? January 2007).

01-31-2007

---

Frilot, Partridge, Kohnke & Clements, L.C.

Judge Approves Murphy Oil Class Settlement
U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon granted final approval of the Murphy Oil Class Action Settlement. Specifically, the Court found that the settlement was "....fair,reasonable and adequate." Please see the Court’s Order and Reasons and Final Judgment below for more information.

01-31-2007

---

25383 matches |  11040-11046 displayed

1  1576 1577 1578 1579 1580  3627