Fresno Attorneys receive Super Lawyer and Rising Star Honors
October 9, 2009
Super Lawyers and Rising Stars are honorary titles bestowed upon a select group of the most distinguished attorneys by the San Francisco publication, Law and Politics. Lang, Richert & Patch proudly recognizes its 2009 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars. Attorneys earn this distinction after being evaluated in a multi-phase process that involves peer nomination and third-party research, which rigorously evaluates the nominees. Renowned authorities esteem this complex process of selecting top lawyers and deem it legitimate. As a result of its selection criteria and in-depth research process, Super Lawyers and Rising Stars are among the most noteworthy, if not best, client representatives in the state and leaders in the legal community.
The Super Lawyers process is complex and recognized as a bona fide system of identifying the top lawyers in respective practice areas. The publication ensures quality selection by employing 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement, including verdicts, settlements, transactions, representative clients, experience, honors, awards, etcetera..Once the final selections are made, only 5 percent of lawyers in each state make the published list of Super Lawyers, and no more than 2.5 percent are named as Rising Stars.
Lang, Richert & Patch continues to maintain its reputation as “The Firm of Distinction”, with five attorneys earning the title of Super Lawyer and two others being named as Rising Stars. The Super Lawyers hailing from Lang, Richert & Patch include; personal injury and wrongful death specialist Robert L. Patch II, construction and complex litigation attorney Val W. Saldana, bankruptcy and insolvency advocate Rene Lastreto II, employment and labor law attorney Charles T. Taylor, and construction law specialist Mark L. Creede. LR&P further recognizes Rising Stars, Matthew W. Quall, construction litigation attorney, and Craig B. Fry, corporate and business transactions and bankruptcy specialist.
The selection of Super Lawyers and Rising Stars from Lang, Richert & Patch represents the broad and diverse set of skills and backgrounds the firm brings to litigation matters. The seven Super Lawyer and Rising Star honorees represent two thirds of the lawyers currently practicing with Lang, Richert, & Patch and is by far the largest contingent in the Central Valley. Attorney Val Saldana commented that the title is, “as much an honor for the entire firm, as it is for the individuals involved”. Saldana further noted, “we have always taken a collaborative team approach to our complex litigation matters.” The multiple Super Lawyer and Rising Star distinctions demonstrate Lang, Richert & Patch’s ability to provide aggressive and effective results to a wide range of client demands.
Lang, Richert & Patch has strived for more than 40 years to provide its clients with premier legal services through establishing an open and collaborative environment while maintaining a result driven mentality. The experience and expertise of the firm has earned the respect of both the local and legal communities. The firm also received the prestigious, Martindale-Hubbell AV-rating, which is the highest peer rating for ethics and ability. Looking ahead, Val Saldana notes that, “we have worked hard to achieve preeminent status in the business litigation and bankruptcy departments. And we intend to keep on building.”
A Trend Toward Harmonizing Reasonable Accommodation and Interactive Process Claims Under the FEHA and ADA?
February 2, 2009
Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., et al.: A Trend Toward Harmonizing Reasonable Accommodation and Interactive Process Claims Under the FEHA and ADA?
The Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District in Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., et al. (Sept. 10, 2008, Cal. Ct. App. 1st) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2008 DJDAR14314] held the federal definition of “reasonable accommodation” applies to disability-based discrimination claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12940 et seq. (the “FEHA”), perpetuating a split among California Courts of Appeal regarding the scope of protections available under the FEHA to qualified disabled workers. The following holdings are of particular significance.
Court of Appeal Rules Employers Must Only Provide Meal and Rest Breaks
November 17, 2008
Update: The Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Case Ruling Employers Must Only Provide Meal and Rest Breaks
On October 22, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted review of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 25. The Court of Appeal found, among other things, that employers need only provide, not ensure, that meal and rest periods are taken. Because the Supreme Court has granted review, the findings by the Court of Appeal are no longer good law and should not be followed.
Original Article Posted Below:
(July 23, 2008) In a decision that will have an impact on the laws governing meal and rest breaks, the 4th District Court of Appeal yesterday ruled that California law requires that employers need only provide meal periods, and, as a result, as with the rest period claims, the plaintiffs’ meal period claims are not amenable to class treatment.
The issue before the court in the case of Brinker Restaurant Corporation et al., v. The Superior Court of San Diego County, is did the trial court err in certifying this matter as a class action without first determining the elements of plaintiffs and real parties in interest against the defendants? [Read more]
General Counsel to Employees: Think Before You Send
December 10, 2007
Katheryn Hayes Tucker
Fulton County Daily Report
E-discovery rules have caused in-house counsel to take a harder line with some of the e-mails that workers think are private
“Don’t put this in writing, but … ” Those are the opening words of an e-mail that got the writer’s company in legal hot water. And there are plenty more where that came from.
“This is off the record,” started the e-mail that in fact put it all on the record.
How about this one? “We may be in breach of contract, and here’s why.”
These examples of troublesome e-mails general counsel say they’ve run across don’t include the countless off color so-called jokes forwarded to contact lists of colleagues, interested or not, or links to Web sites that are definitely not part of a corporate job description.
Employers Required to Complete Sexual Harassment Training
August 15, 2005
By Charles Trudrung Taylor
Lang, Richert and Patch
Last year, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law AB 1825, a bill mandating sexual harassment training for supervisory employees every two years. The new law provides that by January 1, 2006 all employers with 50 or more employees must provide at least two hours of sexual harassment training to supervisory employees. Although employers may resent initial costs and burdens of implementing training programs, this preventative law aims to reduce sexual harassment in the workplace, thereby saving employers money in the long run by reducing the number of costly lawsuits.