Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Business Casual
author: Mei Ng
Casual Fridays. Some love it. Others fear it. Dressing business casual can cause so many problems because it’s hard to define. First we must define business formal (i.e., dressing for court) before we can move to business casual.
Men. Business formal means wearing a matching suit, a nicely ironed shirt and a tie. Ladies. Business formal also means wearing a matching suit and a nice blouse or collared shirt. A matching suit means a jacket and pants or skirt are made from the exact same material. No exceptions.
Now… business casual is simply business formal without the jacket (and tie, for the men). Business casual means, if there was an unexpected client meeting or run to the court, you can put on a matching jacket and tie and run out the door. Guys, make sure you have a neutral color tie handy. If you are a dressy casual dresser (explained below), always have an extra suit in the office. You don’t want to be the one associate the partners leave behind because you are not dressed for the occasion.
Save your dressy casual dress for Casual Fridays (do these still exist?). According to www.bitterlawyer.com, dressy casual means you find a nice top and pants in your closet, and your done.
Although these are the rules of thumb, always check with your employer first.
If you have any questions or comments on the blog, email us at: blog@lauruslaw.com.
Casual Fridays. Some love it. Others fear it. Dressing business casual can cause so many problems because it’s hard to define. First we must define business formal (i.e., dressing for court) before we can move to business casual.
Men. Business formal means wearing a matching suit, a nicely ironed shirt and a tie. Ladies. Business formal also means wearing a matching suit and a nice blouse or collared shirt. A matching suit means a jacket and pants or skirt are made from the exact same material. No exceptions.
Now… business casual is simply business formal without the jacket (and tie, for the men). Business casual means, if there was an unexpected client meeting or run to the court, you can put on a matching jacket and tie and run out the door. Guys, make sure you have a neutral color tie handy. If you are a dressy casual dresser (explained below), always have an extra suit in the office. You don’t want to be the one associate the partners leave behind because you are not dressed for the occasion.
Save your dressy casual dress for Casual Fridays (do these still exist?). According to www.bitterlawyer.com, dressy casual means you find a nice top and pants in your closet, and your done.
Although these are the rules of thumb, always check with your employer first.
If you have any questions or comments on the blog, email us at: blog@lauruslaw.com.
Friday, June 25, 2010
The Gap in North County
Upon writing this title, I once again realized the importance of diction in creating a title. Words are powerful, not because of the letters found in them, but instead because of the meaning behind them. No, the title above is not in reference to The Gap stores of North County, sorry to disappoint those readers who stumbled upon this blog in anticipation of such. Instead, this title was chosen as a reflection of our last week here at Laurus Law.
Mei and I are part of the San Diego County Bar Association Young New Lawyer Division. I am also part of a similar group in Orange County. However, we are trying to spend most of our work time in the North County of San Diego. Therefore, we noticed that there was a lacking in North County. While there is a North County Bar Association, and we are members of such, there is no organization that caters to new and young lawyers in North County. This sounded like opportunity knocking for Laurus Law Group.
During the past week, we have met with leaders in both the San Diego County Bar Association and the North County Bar Association about creating an organization for new and young lawyers. We even had a discussion with leaders in the Orange County Bar Association about creating this group. All these meetings went wonderful and the people we met were very helpful and encouraging, offering many great ideas and tips to help us get started. So, with that, Laurus Law Group will be heading a push to get an organization formed in North County for Young/New Lawyers.
What does this mean for you, our clients? It means that we here at Laurus Law want to be involved in our community. We want to help get new and young lawyers in our community better equipped to serve their own clients, as well as providing services, fundraisers, and other events both for attorneys and for the public. Also, it means that we appreciate the uniqueness of North County San Diego. We realize that it is far from downtown San Diego and that lawyers and clients shouldn’t have to equate legal services with downtown. We hope that this organization hits the ground running and is a success. Look for its initiation this fall.
If you have ay questions or comments about this blog, please email us at blog@lauruslaw.com.
Mei and I are part of the San Diego County Bar Association Young New Lawyer Division. I am also part of a similar group in Orange County. However, we are trying to spend most of our work time in the North County of San Diego. Therefore, we noticed that there was a lacking in North County. While there is a North County Bar Association, and we are members of such, there is no organization that caters to new and young lawyers in North County. This sounded like opportunity knocking for Laurus Law Group.
During the past week, we have met with leaders in both the San Diego County Bar Association and the North County Bar Association about creating an organization for new and young lawyers. We even had a discussion with leaders in the Orange County Bar Association about creating this group. All these meetings went wonderful and the people we met were very helpful and encouraging, offering many great ideas and tips to help us get started. So, with that, Laurus Law Group will be heading a push to get an organization formed in North County for Young/New Lawyers.
What does this mean for you, our clients? It means that we here at Laurus Law want to be involved in our community. We want to help get new and young lawyers in our community better equipped to serve their own clients, as well as providing services, fundraisers, and other events both for attorneys and for the public. Also, it means that we appreciate the uniqueness of North County San Diego. We realize that it is far from downtown San Diego and that lawyers and clients shouldn’t have to equate legal services with downtown. We hope that this organization hits the ground running and is a success. Look for its initiation this fall.
If you have ay questions or comments about this blog, please email us at blog@lauruslaw.com.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Is Florida Taking by Giving?
author: Mei Ng
Although Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, et al., 560 U.S. ____ 2010, No. 08-1151 (June 17, 2010) originated in Florida, this case hits particularly close to home to us February 2010 California State Bar takers. Specifically Question 5 of the California Bar Examination, which asked us to discuss a total taking and partial taking of a development application. This question sure took me for a loop. The only thought going through my head was “How the heck can I write for an hour on a topic we only spent a few minutes studying?” I quickly read the hypothetical, and flipped the page to Question 6 even quicker. Oh Community Property, how I love thee.
Finally during the last hour of the morning session of Day 3 of the Bar Examination, I hesitantly turned the test booklet to Question 5. I read the hypothetical again, and again. Ah… Something was finally clicking… I finally started to recall what physical and regulatory taking are. I could not hold back any longer. For better or for worse, I wrote. I wrote for an hour and didn’t look back. I am glad it was for the better.
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in part states, “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” So what does that mean? Even the Supreme Court Justices were at a deadlock in their 4-4 decision of this case (Justice Stevens recused himself from the case because he owns property affected by the ruling).
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection implemented a project to restore 6.9 miles of eroded beaches in the Florida Panhandle by adding 75 feet of dry sand seaward to the high-tide line, adding more distance to the beach for oceanfront beach property owners. The issue was whether Florida’s efforts to restore some of its beaches rose to the level of a taking due to the restoration work’s causing former beach-front owners’ property lines to be moved further away from the ocean water. According to Rick E. Rayl from www.californiaeminentdomain.com, “the Court held unanimously that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision did not constitute a taking. The Court upheld the ruling in favor of the state, meaning those beach-front property owners whose property is now a bit further away from the ocean are out of luck.” (Click on the link above to read the entirety of the case.)
So… what does this have to do with anything? Not much. The majority of us do not own oceanfront property nor do we own ocean-view property. Most of us live in the suburbs of a major city or condominiums in downtown close to the embarcadero. The reason why I decided to blog about this particular case was because, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, this case hits close to home. Takings clause, I’m glad you and me will possibly never ever meet again.
If you have any questions or comments on the blog, email us at: blog@lauruslaw.com.
Although Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, et al., 560 U.S. ____ 2010, No. 08-1151 (June 17, 2010) originated in Florida, this case hits particularly close to home to us February 2010 California State Bar takers. Specifically Question 5 of the California Bar Examination, which asked us to discuss a total taking and partial taking of a development application. This question sure took me for a loop. The only thought going through my head was “How the heck can I write for an hour on a topic we only spent a few minutes studying?” I quickly read the hypothetical, and flipped the page to Question 6 even quicker. Oh Community Property, how I love thee.
Finally during the last hour of the morning session of Day 3 of the Bar Examination, I hesitantly turned the test booklet to Question 5. I read the hypothetical again, and again. Ah… Something was finally clicking… I finally started to recall what physical and regulatory taking are. I could not hold back any longer. For better or for worse, I wrote. I wrote for an hour and didn’t look back. I am glad it was for the better.
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in part states, “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” So what does that mean? Even the Supreme Court Justices were at a deadlock in their 4-4 decision of this case (Justice Stevens recused himself from the case because he owns property affected by the ruling).
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection implemented a project to restore 6.9 miles of eroded beaches in the Florida Panhandle by adding 75 feet of dry sand seaward to the high-tide line, adding more distance to the beach for oceanfront beach property owners. The issue was whether Florida’s efforts to restore some of its beaches rose to the level of a taking due to the restoration work’s causing former beach-front owners’ property lines to be moved further away from the ocean water. According to Rick E. Rayl from www.californiaeminentdomain.com, “the Court held unanimously that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision did not constitute a taking. The Court upheld the ruling in favor of the state, meaning those beach-front property owners whose property is now a bit further away from the ocean are out of luck.” (Click on the link above to read the entirety of the case.)
So… what does this have to do with anything? Not much. The majority of us do not own oceanfront property nor do we own ocean-view property. Most of us live in the suburbs of a major city or condominiums in downtown close to the embarcadero. The reason why I decided to blog about this particular case was because, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, this case hits close to home. Takings clause, I’m glad you and me will possibly never ever meet again.
If you have any questions or comments on the blog, email us at: blog@lauruslaw.com.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
A Cheap Year to Die
Author: Dustin Wetton
With a title like that, I am sure that you just want to know exactly what I am talking about. However, before I indulge into the meaning of the title, let me tell you what Laurus Law has been up to recently. Last week, I attended the San Diego County Bar Association Young Lawyer Division’s Mixer at the Grant Grille. This event was mostly for networking and updating the YNLD members of upcoming events that are occurring. I met many nice and friendly people at the event. On the next evening, Mei attended California Western School of Law Alumni’s event downtown. There, she was congratulated many times for recently being sworn in and for forming Laurus Law Group. I did not attend the event because I was at an Orange County Bar Association Summer Mixer up in Irvine. All of these events are quite enjoyable, and eventually I think we are going to have a competition in our firm to see which event is the “best event of the year.” Be sure to keep checking our blog for a rating system and rankings.
This week has been a bit calmer for us. We have scheduled meetings around town with various associations and attorneys. We have also started to get involved with the North County Bar Association and helping create a sort of YNLD up there. Mei and I have also signed up for Softball Leagues, separate leagues, and my first game was on last Monday. If you want to see some amazing softball, keep an eye out for future listings of our games.
Now…a cheap year to die. In an article in the New York Times on June 8, 2010, the first billionaire died in recent years without paying any tax. This is due to Congress’ failure to act and the estate tax lapse. Normally, when a person dies who has over a certain amount of money, the government takes a large portion of their estate in taxes. Our government started the estate tax in 1916, and since then the rates have fluctuated tremendously. Last year, if a person died with more than $3.5 million, all money exceeding that would be taxed at 45%. Yet under President Bush, he decided that part of his tax cuts, he would have the estate tax lapse and thus signed this years lapse into law. Therefore, the billionaire who recently passed in Texas was able to pass almost $9 billion dollars to his heirs tax free.
This lapse will only last until 2011, where the tax rate is to go up to 55%. Thus, the title of the blog, it’s a cheap year to die. While only 5,550 people are normally affected by this tax, if you fall into the category where you normally get an estate tax, this year would be a good year to die, if a person was to plan such a thing. See the article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/business/09estate.html?adxnnl=1&ref=homepage&src=me&adxnnlx=1276196939-uF4PNIv3hO3eyYQLNY3VLg
If you have any questions or comments on the blog, email us at: blog@lauruslaw.com.
With a title like that, I am sure that you just want to know exactly what I am talking about. However, before I indulge into the meaning of the title, let me tell you what Laurus Law has been up to recently. Last week, I attended the San Diego County Bar Association Young Lawyer Division’s Mixer at the Grant Grille. This event was mostly for networking and updating the YNLD members of upcoming events that are occurring. I met many nice and friendly people at the event. On the next evening, Mei attended California Western School of Law Alumni’s event downtown. There, she was congratulated many times for recently being sworn in and for forming Laurus Law Group. I did not attend the event because I was at an Orange County Bar Association Summer Mixer up in Irvine. All of these events are quite enjoyable, and eventually I think we are going to have a competition in our firm to see which event is the “best event of the year.” Be sure to keep checking our blog for a rating system and rankings.
This week has been a bit calmer for us. We have scheduled meetings around town with various associations and attorneys. We have also started to get involved with the North County Bar Association and helping create a sort of YNLD up there. Mei and I have also signed up for Softball Leagues, separate leagues, and my first game was on last Monday. If you want to see some amazing softball, keep an eye out for future listings of our games.
Now…a cheap year to die. In an article in the New York Times on June 8, 2010, the first billionaire died in recent years without paying any tax. This is due to Congress’ failure to act and the estate tax lapse. Normally, when a person dies who has over a certain amount of money, the government takes a large portion of their estate in taxes. Our government started the estate tax in 1916, and since then the rates have fluctuated tremendously. Last year, if a person died with more than $3.5 million, all money exceeding that would be taxed at 45%. Yet under President Bush, he decided that part of his tax cuts, he would have the estate tax lapse and thus signed this years lapse into law. Therefore, the billionaire who recently passed in Texas was able to pass almost $9 billion dollars to his heirs tax free.
This lapse will only last until 2011, where the tax rate is to go up to 55%. Thus, the title of the blog, it’s a cheap year to die. While only 5,550 people are normally affected by this tax, if you fall into the category where you normally get an estate tax, this year would be a good year to die, if a person was to plan such a thing. See the article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/business/09estate.html?adxnnl=1&ref=homepage&src=me&adxnnlx=1276196939-uF4PNIv3hO3eyYQLNY3VLg
If you have any questions or comments on the blog, email us at: blog@lauruslaw.com.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Welcome!
Welcome to Laurus Law Group's blog. Every week we will update you with upcoming events and tell you what we have been up to. We will also provide you with interesting legal articles and general information that you, our clients, may be interested in. If you have any questions, please email us blog@lauruslaw.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
