Featured News
P&F Files Petition to U.S. Supreme Court in Consolidated Church Property Litigation - 6/24/2009On June 24, 2009, Payne & Fears LLP filed a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of St. James Anglican Church in Newport Beach, California. The church is embroiled in a battle for its property after its withdrawal from the national Episcopal Church in 2004. After the denomination sued St. James Church, the case was consolidated with two others under the title, Episcopal Church Cases. P&F attorneys Eric Sohlgren and Daniel Lula initially obtained a dismissal of all claims in the Superior Court, but the Court of Appeal overturned the judgment in 2007, and P&F successfully petitioned for review by the California Supreme Court. While prevailing before the California Supreme Court on the legal method by which church property disputes will be resolved in California -- neutral principles of law -- unfortunately in applying those principles, on January 5, 2009, the state Supreme Court ruled that a provision of the Corporations Code permits certain religious denominations to create trusts in property owned by separate but spiritually affiliated local churches, solely by enacting an internal "rule" to that effect.
Today's petition for certiorari, filed jointly with Dr. John C. Eastman, Dean of the Chapman University School of Law, argues that the California Supreme Court ruling violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. By empowering "superior religious bodies or general churches" (but no one else) to unilaterally create trusts in property owned by separate member entities, the state court has unconstitutionally preferred certain denominations over other religious or non-religious groups. "Many local congregations that are members of larger denominations or associations purchased their own property and have held record title for decades. A denominational headquarters, often located in some other state, should not have the power to unilaterally create a trust in that property for its own benefit without the local congregation's express informed consent," said Eric Sohlgren. "No other group, such as a community or fraternal organization, can take member property simply by enacting an internal rule," added Daniel Lula, "and denominations should not be given greater power simply because they're religious.
The petition for certiorari is available here. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to take up the case during its October Term. If certiorari is granted, the parties will file legal briefs early next year, with a decision expected in mid to late 2010.
The case has generated national media attention over the past five years, and is being closely watched by churches throughout the nation. Eric Sohlgren was featured in the October 9 issues of both the Los Angeles Daily Journal and The Recorder, and has been interviewed by the Los Angeles Times, OC Register, Associated Press, KABC-TV, KKLA-TV, Anglican TV, numerous radio shows, and many other media outlets.
Eric Sohlgren heads up P&F's cross-disciplinary church law practice. Attorneys Benjamin Nix, Jim Scott, Daniel Lula, Vonn Christenson and Andrew Haeffele round out the church law team.
Publication: QSR Magazine
Employee theft is a serious issue for many in the quick service restaurant industry. Free food, pocketed cash and items tossed out with the trash can all add up to significant lost revenues. There are many actions that quick serve operators can take. At a minimum, the employee manual should be clear on how the company defines employee theft and the repercussions if someone is caught stealing. Quick serve operators can also take preventative measures by instilling a "team" mentality that allows employees to take ownership in the activities of the business. Operators can also utilize technology to monitor business and to prevent employee theft.
However, attorney Rod Sorensen, a partner at Payne & Fears LLP's San Francisco office, advises that employers be upfront about any surveillance or monitoring. "You have to provide notice of what you are planning to do or are doing. If the employee gives consent, the search is valid." Sorensen also recommends reserving the right to inspect lockers and break room areas in the employee manual, which employees should sign off on upon receipt.
If an operator is faced with confronting an employee over suspected theft, they should ensure that there is adequate proof. And if an employee theft does occur, management should use the opportunity to bring the staff together to discuss the situation and review the procedures and policies regarding employee theft.
Publication: Employment Law 360
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ("the Act"), in an attempt to provide economic stimulus to the nation's economy. Among the provisions of the Act are important changes to the continuation coverage of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 ("COBRA"). The Act revises COBRA to alleviate nearly two-thirds of the cost to employees from continuing their medical benefits following an involuntary termination for eligible taxpayers earning below a maximum threshold. For eligible individuals, the Act provides for a 65 percent subsidy of the required COBRA premium for a maximum period of nine months. Eligible employees will only be required to pay 35 percent of the COBRA premium that he or she would otherwise be required to pay for employee and family coverage. This new COBRA benefit under the Act applies to persons who became eligible for COBRA between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009, due to an employee's involuntary termination of employment. The Act requires employers to change some COBRA notices and practices, and also affects payroll tax obligations.
Attorney Leila Narvid in Payne & Fears LLP's San Francisco Office gives the following advice to employers with regard to new obligations arising under the Act:
- All employees eligible for COBRA on or after September 1, 2008, must receive a notice of the availability of premium assistance. This notice can be incorporated into an existing COBRA notice, or added as a supplemental notice.
- Assistance-eligible employees who are currently covered by COBRA must be notified that they are only required to pay 35 percent of the COBRA premium during the period of premium assistance. Assistance-eligible employees who are not currently covered under COBRA must be notified that they now have a second opportunity to elect COBRA.
- Employers and/or plan administrators must notify assistance-eligible employees of provisions relating to COBRA coverage and the federal subsidy no later than April 18, 2009. They must also include with that notice the forms necessary for establishing eligibility under the program. Failure to comply with notice requirements will be a COBRA violation, subject to penalties.
- Employers wishing to be eligible for reimbursement of the 65 percent of premium assistance will need to provide a list of their assistance-eligible employees and the amount of premium assistance paid by the employer as part of its payroll reporting obligations.
- Revise payroll systems to identify eligible individuals in order to report the tax credit to the government and receive the subsidy.
- On March 23, 2009, the DOL issued Act-compliant model COBRA notices. Each model notice is designed for a particular group of qualified beneficiaries and contains information to help satisfy the Act's notice provisions.
The COBRA subsidy will have a substantial impact on almost all employers. Employers have little time to implement the new administrative procedures and meet the new notice requirements. Despite the time pressure, employers should take the time to work with HR, payroll, finance, and third-party providers to ensure understanding of the new provisions. Employers should expect a higher level of use of COBRA than there has been in the past, and should be prepared for that development. Employers should also take careful consideration of the new rules when planning any workplace reductions.
Publication: The Glass Hammer
Are female attorneys at a greater risk for being laid off during a recession? That is a question explored by Anna Collins in her February 24, 2009 column on TheGlassHammer.com. Some experts say that there is no gender discrimination at work in law firm layoffs. Instead, layoffs are determined by profitability and that those who bill less or at a lower rate are more at risk. However, as 74% of part time attorneys are women, they are at a greater risk during a recession because they are not as profitable as full time attorneys. Payne & Fears attorney Leila Narvid added that women lawyers can also be at risk because "the first industries to be hit by economic downturn are women-dominated industries such as retail, hospitality, and service."
Attorneys who work reduced hours can be an asset to a firm that is looking to cut costs, as long as they continue to invest in marketing and professional development. According to Narvid, "the more one shows investment and interest in a firm's well-being and business development endeavors, the more one is viewed as an asset to the firm, even if she does not work full time." Narvid also has several practical tips for women attorneys hoping to survive the recession. "For associates who receive work from partners, it is important to take the initiative to work with partners who have clients in the more stable industries, which right now are clean technology, life sciences, and biotechnology," said Narvid. And for women who work part time, Narvid advises that they "remind the partners, in subtle ways, of the value they bring to the firm."
Publication: TheGlassHammer.com
Layoffs are not the only option for corporations facing the need to cut costs. Alternatives include mandatory furloughs, reduced work weeks and flexible work arrangements; however, employers must implement these strategies while keeping state and federal wage and hour laws in mind. Leila Narvid, an attorney in Payne & Fears LLP's San Francisco office, quoted extensively in an article on TheGlassHammer.com, discusses the legal pitfalls of implementing such programs.
For example, mandatory work furloughs may be difficult to implement with "exempt" employees (those who are exempt from the wage and hour regulations covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act and other state laws). "If any exempt employee performs any work during a workweek," Narvid says "that person must receive his or her entire salary for that week." Thus, failure to pay an exempt employee for a week where any work is performed -- even very minimal work -- can jeopardize that employee's exempt status. Narvid recommends that employers should inform exempt employees that absolutely no work is authorized during the furlough period without advance permission.
Narvid also cautions that employers must be careful when implementing a reduced work week for reduced wages so that the reduced wage does not bring the employee's salary below the required threshold amount -- $455 per week under federal law, and higher in some states. "The least risk is taken by reducing the pay of exempt employees without dictating the hours they work," Narvid suggests. Finally, Narvid explains that while flexible working arrangements are gaining popularity, employers must carefully review their policies to ensure compliance with wage and hour laws, such as the FLSA, many of which were not designed to be flexible or to facilitate the practical concerns of the modern-day employer and employee. However, if legislation currently pending in Congress is passed, Working Family Flexibility Act, then state and federal regulators will be forced to clarify labor and employment laws that affect flexible work arrangements.
All employers should review their policies, handbooks and employment contracts before implementing any of the alternatives to layoffs.
Publication: National Law Journal
Employees who participate in the latest social networking craze known as "Twitter" could create legal risks for themselves as well as their employers. "Tweets," as the no longer than 140 character blog posts are known, are posted from corporate networks and are subject to the legal rules of electronic discovery and raise issues of invasion of privacy and defamation issues. Tweets can also raise intellectual property issues.
Rod Sorensen, a partner in Payne & Fears LLP's San Francisco office, quoted in the National Law Journal, confirmed that Tweets can lead to legal trouble. "They're quick sound bites and instantaneous and, as we know, instantaneous messages aren't the most well-thought out....Someone could, for example, say something when they're angry or frustrated. It opens the door to poor judgment. And, of course, as with other technology, once it's released you're not going to get it back."
On Friday, December 5, Eric Sohlgren appeared as the featured guest on KKLA's the Frank Pastore Show. During the 30-minute interview, Eric discussed his experience representing St. James Anglican Church in its landmark property dispute with the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles. Eric also offered insight on recent legal and theological developments within the Anglican community.
On Saturday, December 6, Eric Sohlgren appeared on KWVE's Update, a public interest radio show highlighting community leaders and non-profit organizations. Eric discussed the Episcopal Church property case currently pending before the California Supreme Court and the ramifications the case will have throughout California's legal, real estate, and religious communities.
Payne & Fears LLP is pleased to announce that seventeen of the firm's attorneys were named 2008 Super Lawyers by Law & Politics. Super Lawyers is a listing of outstanding lawyers from more than 60 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.
The Payne & Fears attorneys named California Super Lawyers are as follows: Erik Andersen (Business Litigation); Jeffrey Brown (Employment & Labor); C. Darryl Cordero (Business Litigation, Insurance Coverage, Health Care); John T. Egley (Employment & Labor, Business Litigation); Daniel F. Fears (Employment & Labor); Laura Fleming (Employment & Labor); Daniel M. Livingston (Business Litigation); Charles M. Louderback (Employment & Labor, Business Litigation); Daniel F. Lula (Business Litigation, Employment & Labor); James R. Moss, Jr. (Employment & Labor); Benjamin A. Nix (Business Litigation; Intellectual Property Litigation); James L. Payne (Employment & Labor); Daniel L. Rasmussen (Business Litigation); Eric C. Sohlgren (Employment & Labor); Scott S. Thomas (Insurance Coverage); J. Kelby Van Patten (Insurance Coverage); and Thomas L. Vincent (Business Litigation, Construction/Surety).
Law & Politics selects Super Lawyers based on a unique multi-step process including a regional survey, internal searches, an extensive evaluation of each candidate's professional achievement and evidence of peer recognition, peer evaluations by practice area and a final selection. Super Lawyers selects only five percent of the licensed active attorneys in a state for this prestigious honor.
Publication: Law360
California class actions against employers for break time violations will be harder to file and more difficult to prove, according to an August 18th article published by Law360. In two recent cases against Brinker International, Inc., and Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., California courts ruled on the side of the employers, holding that an employer is only obligated to make meal and rest breaks available, it does not have to ensure that these breaks are taken. Payne & Fears LLP associate Leila Narvid described the rulings as a greater shift against rest period class actions, and explained the new measures plaintiffs will have to take to show a history of violations. "If the California Supreme Court does not grant review, it will serve as a significant barrier to class certification in most meal and rest break cases, and we can expect a major decrease in the number of class action lawsuits in this arena," Narvid told Law360.
Publication: MSNBC.com
With the popularity of online networking websites such as Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn, more and more hiring managers are turning to the web to find and interview references for prospective employees. As an August 18th MSNBC article reports, HR professionals are using applicants' social networking profiles to contact friends, get references, and uncover more information about potential employees, often without the applicant's knowledge or permission. While many HR professionals consider social networking sites a convenient and useful tool for uncovering information, Payne & Fears attorney Rich Falcone warns that hiring managers still need to exercise caution and discretion. "Some managers may have the feeling of freedom in cyberspace, doing things from home when they don't feel the restraints of the office with the HR person looking over their shoulder," Falcone told MSNBC. "We recommend they just give out name, rank, and serial number."
Publication: Miami Herald
Employees often feel they have more rights to privacy at work than they actually do, according to an August 3rd article in the Miami Herald. As long as employees are made aware of company privacy policies, employers in most states are allowed to videotape workers, search workspaces, and examine e-mails and online activity without prior consent. Payne & Fears attorney Rich Falcone advised employers on the safest and most effective ways to publicize corporate privacy policies. "First, an employer should disseminate its written policies informing its employees that they should not have an expectation of privacy with regards to computers, lockers, desks, vehicles, or other personal effects," Rich told the Miami Herald. "Second, an employer should obtain the written approval of its employees by having them acknowledge their awareness of the employer's policy and granting permission for the employers to inspect lockers, desks, etc."
Payne & Fears LLP recently obtained a defense verdict for a manufacturing client on claims for racial discrimination, racial harassment and retaliation in a jury trial in San Bernadino County Superior Court. The plaintiff was a 19-year employee whose employment was terminated for two safety violations in a short period of time. He alleged that his safety violations were fabricated by his Supervisor in order to arrange his termination, motivated by the Supervisor's bias against him on the basis of his race (African-American) and age (over 65). He also accused his Supervisor of repeatedly harassing him on the basis of his race and age, using racial epithets and accused his employer of terminating him in retaliation for complaints about the Supervisor's alleged harassment. After a two-week trial, the jury returned defense verdicts on all of the plaintiff's race-based claims, for discrimination, harassment and retaliation. While the jury was deliberating on the plaintiff's age claims, plaintiff accepted a cost waiver in exchange for abandoning his remaining claims for discrimination and harassment on the basis of his age. James L. Payne and James R. Moss tried the case, with assistance from Laura Fleming.
In June 2006, Payne & Fears LLP obtained summary judgment for its client, a New Jersey intellectual property firm, in an action brought by a California tool distributor and its Taiwanese supplier. The complaint, which sought millions in damages, alleged that the client violated federal antitrust law, the Lanham Act and state law when it brought a prior suit against the distributor and supplier for patent infringement. In 2005, Payne & Fears brought a successful motion for partial summary judgment on litigation privilege grounds, which eliminated six of nine claims. After discovery, the federal court held that the underlying patent case was supported by probable cause and protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, dismissing the three remaining claims. Plaintiffs then appealed to the Ninth Circuit. After briefing and oral argument, the Ninth Circuit agreed with Payne & Fears on all points and upheld the grant of summary judgment in favor of its client in a published decision. Daniel L. Rasmussen and Daniel F. Lula handled the defense and the appeal.
Payne & Fears LLP attorneys Eric C. Sohlgren and Daniel F. Lula have submitted the reply brief to the California Supreme Court on behalf of St. James Anglican Church in its high profile church property case with the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and the national Episcopal Church. The brief reinforces the strengths of the St. James case while responding to legal arguments made by the Episcopalians in their briefs. The case is being watched closely throughout the nation.
The reply brief is one of many steps that will culminate with the California Supreme Court deciding three important issues affecting every church in California, regardless of denomination:
Issue #1: Should California courts use the "neutral principles of law" method in resolving church property disputes, or simply defer to the decisions of the church hierarchy?
Issue #2: Does California Corporations Code section 9142(c) permit a religious denomination, which does not hold title to property, to create a trust in its favor over property owned by a separate religious corporation, without the latter's knowledge or express agreement? If so, does Corporations Code section 9142(c) violate the establishment and equal protection clauses of the United States and California Constitutions by permitting religious organizations, and only religious organizations, to create trusts over property they do not own without the express consent of the owner?
Issue #3: When a local church corporation speaks out about the actions of a religious denomination by voting to disaffiliate from it, and the denomination then challenges the validity of the disaffiliation and claims ownership of the corporation's property, are these claims subject to early scrutiny as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP")?
The California Supreme Court has granted review of three similar church property cases involving All Saints' Anglican Church, Long Beach, St. David's, North Hollywood, and First Baptist Church, Los Lomas. Those cases are on hold pending the outcome of the St. James case. Four other cases now pending in the California Court of Appeal -involving former Russian Orthodox, Assemblies of God and Episcopal churches - will be directly affected by the St. James case. In addition to many of these appeals, Payne & Fears LLP is defending other church property actions in the trial courts on behalf of local church corporations and their officers and directors.
Click here to read the St. James reply brief.Payne & Fears LLP partner Eric Sohlgren was interviewed by Anne Colletta of AnglicanTV.org regarding the various church property cases that the firm has handled. Click here to replay the video interview.
Click to see the video clip.
Founding Partner James Payne Passes Leadership To Dan Rasmussen As Firm Continues To Build Upon its Remarkable Success
IRVINE, CA September 28, 2007 - Payne & Fears LLP, a leading law firm specializing in employment law and business litigation, announced today that Daniel L. Rasmussen has been elected Managing Partner. As Managing Partner, Rasmussen will build upon Payne & Fears' reputation as one of the leading employment and business litigation firms on the West Coast, while expanding its representation of insurance policyholders and religious institutions.
The firm's co-founder, James L. Payne, served as Managing Partner for over 15 years before choosing to transition the management responsibilities to allow more time for his significant law practice and further business development. "I am honored to have been able to create a solid foundation for one of the finest law firms in the Western states, and to pass the torch of leadership to someone as capable and hard working as Dan'" said Jim Payne. "Dan brings the perfect mix of experience and innovation to the position of Managing Partner, and we are confident that his talent and leadership skills will take our firm to the next level."
"Jim's commitment to best in class service and core values has led to enormous success and credibility for our firm over the last fifteen and a half years, and I am honored to assume the position of Managing Partner," said Rasmussen. "I am confident that we, with our talented team of professionals, will continue to build upon our track record of major client victories, top peer recognition and consistent growth."
Rasmussen has been a partner with Payne & Fears since 1994, and specializes in business litigation and appellate law. He has served as a member of the firm's management committee, and has been repeatedly honored in various legal and business publications.
Founded in 1992, by James L. Payne and Daniel F. Fears in Irvine, California, Payne & Fears has transformed from a two-lawyer labor law boutique into a four-office litigation enterprise, handling business, property, and insurance litigation as well. The firm's diverse clients include Fortune 100 corporations, emerging companies, non-profit organizations, churches, partnerships and individuals.
About Payne & Fears, LLP
Payne & Fears LLP provides the highest quality legal services for its clients in several practice areas including labor and employment counseling and litigation, business litigation, insurance coverage and business transactions. The firm's diverse clients include Fortune 100 corporations, emerging companies, non-profit organizations, churches, partnerships and individuals. Payne & Fears LLP is headquartered in Irvine, California with offices in Los Angeles, Las Vegas and San Francisco. For more information, visit www.paynefears.com.
Bios follow:
Daniel L. Rasmussen specializes in business litigation and appellate law, covering a range of fields including real property, product liability, contract law, commercial law, corporations, discrimination, fiduciary relations, unfair competition and business torts. Mr. Rasmussen received his Bachelor of Science Degree in finance, magna cum laude, in 1982 from Brigham Young University. He was awarded his juris doctor in 1985 from Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, and Berkeley. Mr. Rasmussen is a member of the Business Litigation and Appellate Law Sections of the Orange County Bar Association. He is also a member of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers.
James L. Payne specializes in the representation of management in all aspects of employment law, including wrongful termination, employment discrimination, civil rights, wage and hour/compensation, trade secrets misappropriation and traditional labor law matters. Mr. Payne received his B.A. in 1975 from the University of California at Irvine and his juris doctor in 1982 from Loyola Marymount University of Los Angeles, where he was Articles Editor of the Loyola Law Review, a member of the Saint Thomas More Law Honor Society and a cum laude graduate (top 5%). Upon graduation, Mr. Payne served as a Law Clerk to the Honorable Thomas Tang, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Payne is a member of the Labor and Employment Law Section of the American Bar Association, the Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of California and the Labor Law Section of the Orange County Bar Association. Mr. Payne lectures extensively to business, civic and legal groups on subjects relating to labor, employment and trade secrets law. He also publishes articles regularly on those topics with various business and legal publications.
The San Francisco office of Payne & Fears LLP, which was opened just six months ago, has recently added two experienced management-side employment lawyers, Rich Falcone and Rod Sorensen. Both previously were partners at DLA Piper in Palo Alto, and before that both practiced at Littler Mendelson. They bring a combined 34 years of experience representing employers in all aspects of employment law and litigation.
The expansion continues a steady trend of client-driven growth for Payne & Fears LLP since its founding in 1992. The Irvine-based firm opened its Los Angeles office in 2003, its Las Vegas office in 2004 and the San Francisco office in 2006. Payne & Fears LLP has grown to 50 attorneys with diversified employment and business law experience.
"Adding talented lawyers such as Rich and Rod further solidifies our Northern California practice and adds an even greater depth of experience with which to assist our clients" said James Payne, managing partner, Payne & Fears LLP. "Rich and Rod will be outstanding assets to many of the firm's clients, who increasingly face a myriad of employment related issues."
Mr. Falcone received his B.A., cum laude, in 1974 from Tusculum College in Greeneville, Tennessee, and his juris doctor in 1980 from the University of Santa Clara University School of Law where he was an Editor of the Santa Clara University Law Review.
Mr. Sorensen earned his J.D. (Dean's List) from Santa Clara University School of Law. While at Santa Clara, Mr. Sorensen was an Editor of the Santa Clara University Law Review and a member of the Moot Court Board. Mr. Sorensen received his B.S. (cum laude) from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.
Payne & Fears LLP has continued its West Coast expansion by opening a
The expansion continues a steady trend of client-driven growth for Payne & Fears LLP since its founding in 1992. The Irvine-based firm opened its
"With their experience and excellent reputation in the
Charles "Chuck" Louderback is a highly regarded trial lawyer who serves on the faculty of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy (NITA), and has been a guest lecturer at the Schools of Law at
Payne & Fears LLP provides a broad range of legal services including business litigation, insurance coverage, business transactions, and labor and employment counseling and litigation. The firm's diverse clients include Fortune 100 corporations, emerging companies, non-profit organizations, churches, partnerships and individuals. Payne & Fears LLP is headquartered in
Payne & Fears LLP Insurance Law Department partners Scott Thomas, Kelby Van Patten, and Greg King will be speaking at a conference entitled "Insurance Coverage for Construction Defects in Nevada." The conference will take place on February 2, 2006 in Reno, Nevada, and on February 3, 2006 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The conference is sponsored by the Nevada State Bar Association and Payne & Fears LLP.
Payne & Fears LLP partner Kelby Van Patten is the chair of the program.
Payne & Fears LLP obtained a major victory for St. James Anglican Church, Newport Beach, California, after the Orange County Superior Court ruled on August 15, 2005, that the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles could not confiscate the property and church buildings that St. James members built over many decades. The case has received international media attention since St. James left the Episcopal Church one year ago. Up against some of the largest law firms in the country, Payne & Fears lawyers Eric C. Sohlgren and Daniel F. Lula argued that the Diocese's lawsuit, naming even volunteer church members as defendants, arose from protected speech about public issues, and that the plaintiffs could not prove they would prevail based on California law. The court agreed, striking the original complaint and an amended complaint under the California anti-SLAPP statute, which is aimed at protecting free speech rights against powerful interests that use litigation for improper purposes. [Press release and copies of the court's orders in this case are available in the publications/articles section of this website.]
Continuing a series of recent awards and recognition, many Payne & Fears LLP attorneys have been named "Super Lawyers" or "Rising Stars" by their peers in the legal community Seventeen Payne & Fears lawyers were named "2005 Super Lawyers" by Super Lawyers®, "The Ultimate Guide to The Best Attorneys in Southern California," published as a joint project of Law & Politics and Los Angeles Magazine. Those on the list were nominated and rated by bar members who were asked to vote for the best lawyers they had personally observed in action. The nominations were researched by Law & Politics, and finally reviewed and selected for the list by practice-area blue ribbon panels of top attorneys.
The Super Lawyer designation indicates that the lawyer is in the top 5% of lawyers practicing in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The Payne & Fears LLP lawyers who were named Super Lawyers are: James L. Payne, Daniel F. Fears, Daniel M. Livingston, Daniel L. Rasmussen, Benjamin A. Nix, Eric C. Sohlgren, Jeffrey K. Brown, Scott S. Thomas, Karen O. Frankudakis, Thomas L. Vincent, J. Kelby Van Patten, C. Darryl Cordero, W. James Scott, Jr., Richard K. Zepfel, Julie J. Bisceglia, Sean A. O'Brien, Alan G. Ross and Gregory H. King.
The publication further honored seven of those lawyers as not just being in the top 5%, but being among the top 50 lawyers in Orange County: James L. Payne, Daniel F. Fears, Daniel M. Livingston, Daniel L. Rasmussen, Benjamin A. Nix, Eric C. Sohlgren and Jeffrey K. Brown.
In addition to these honors, Payne & Fears LLP also celebrates its nine "Rising Stars" as identified by Law & Politics magazine. A "Rising Star" is an up-and-coming attorney who is 40 or younger or has been in practice ten or fewer years. The results are based on responses to surveys sent to California lawyers who themselves had been selected as Super Lawyers. The final list includes less than 3 percent of the Southern California Bar, and will be featured in Los Angeles magazine. The Payne & Fears LLP lawyers who were named "Rising Stars" are: James R. Moss, Jr. John V. DeZee, Sean T. Nguyen, Yoko Yagi Lim, Thayne Larson, Daniel F. Lula, Erik M. Andersen, Lindley P. Fraley and Stacey O. Jue Congratulations to all of the honorees.
