My name is Omid Rejali. I am the founder of Rejali Law Firm as well as the creator of the Rejali Foundation, a nonprofit for mental illness awareness, and LawPer, a lawyer-client matching service designed to make legal services more affordable.
Last month, the Hon. Katherine A. Bacal and Stacy Fode, Esq., of Nukk-Freeman & Cerra, PC, offered civil practice tips and tricks as part of the NLD’s Court Practice Series.
Alex Calero is a litigator for the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, where he brings lawsuits on behalf of California citizens against individuals and companies who violate financial laws. Chair of the California Lawyers Association (CLA) Public Law Section, Calero won last year’s SDCBA Service by a Public Attorney Award for his excellence as a public sector attorney and his commitment to mentoring. Throughout his 16 years of practice, Calero has not only been a dedicated public servant, but he has also found time to mentor new lawyers and support civics education in San Diego.
On January 28, 2022, Senate Bill 467 passed the Senate with a 30-3 vote, sending it to the Assembly where it now needs to pass with a majority vote before being sent to the Governor for his signature. If enacted, Senate Bill 467 will strengthen the grounds on which individuals wrongfully convicted of a crime can seek post-conviction relief and ultimately help exonerate innocent people in prisons across California.
Deveney Wells-Gibson’s path to opening her own law firm shows how hard work and dedication can open opportunities for entrepreneurship and making dreams come true.
Whether working on a case with a client or as part of volunteer service, I spend a lot of time in meetings. I love when meetings go smoothly. There is consensus regarding what priorities should be and the solutions we should employ to achieve our objectives. No feelings are hurt; the organization moves in the direction that everybody wants. The discussion goes quickly. And I get home sooner to see my wife and kids.
By David C. Carr
The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 3, has a new opinion, Falcon Brands v. Mousavi & Lee L.L.P. (case no. G059477, filed 1/27/22), that adds to our knowledge of one of the more opaque issues in legal ethics: when do a lawyer’s demands to settle become extortion?
Tomorrow, our directors will meet to select two people to be appointed to fill vacancies on our board. It really is a wonderful opportunity. Each fall, our membership does a fantastic job of selecting outstanding lawyers to join our ranks. I have had the privilege of being able to work alongside existing friends and to meet several new people. Each has been extraordinary. But there is one challenge in that task. When a third of the board is being replaced and there is a fairly large field of candidates to choose from, there is sometimes difficulty in figuring out what the overall composition of the board will be.
At the San Diego County Bar Association’s judicial reception last week, I enjoyed the opportunity to talk with a lot of my favorite colleagues in our legal community, as well as to meet some new faces. Some who particularly impressed me were several first-year law students. They not only attended the event, but also significantly engaged with other guests. When I was a law student, that gregarious approach with members of the bar was not in my nature. Maybe, back then, I felt it was too hard to find common ground, or maybe I just did not then realize the importance of it. But the concept of this being a profession that is most effectively practiced by those with strong, established relationships is one that has been reinforced seemingly every day of my career.
By Anne M. Rudolph
In 2018, the Supreme Court rejected a proposed modified version of Model Rule 1.14 which would have allowed an attorney to take protective action if the attorney reasonably believed that the client had diminished capacity, was unable to act in the client’s own interest, and was at significant risk of physical, psychological or financial harm. Though the Supreme Court did not state its reason for the rejection, it is understood that the proposed rule was rejected because taking such protective action would have required an attorney to disclose a client’s confidential information in contradiction of the attorney’s duty under Business and Professions Code 6068, subdivision (e).
