I’ve been an attorney for 24 years and here’s the insider version of my basic approach to resolving a legal problem.

GET ALL THE FACTS

Most legal problems are multifaceted. The appropriate solution will depend on analysis of all relevant facts. Often, its difficult for both the attorney and the client to separate the relevant from the irrelevant – that’s why a frank and open discussion is important.

It may be cliché, but the first step to solving the problem is recognizing that you’ve got a problem. The second step is assembling all of the relevant facts so that there will be a sound basis for your legal analysis. Let’s face it, your failure to identify a crucial fact can cripple your case. To uncover the relevant facts, ask informed questions and dig to get reliable answers.

DETERMINE WHAT LEGAL STANDARD APPLIES

When a legal problem strikes, it triggers an emotional response in most people. Rather than attempting to identify the applicable legal standard, they immediately focus on the injustice of their situation. Although the injustice of any given situation may be important, you cannot properly analyze the problem with first identifying the applicable legal standard.

The legal standard may be a federal law, state statute, local code, administrative rule, case law, or (more likely) a combination thereof. I highly recommend that you read and re-read the legal standard several times – you‘ll be amazed how people gloss over the most critical aspects of the legal standard and base their argument on everything but the most critical aspects. You cannot afford to make that mistake.

For example, if you’re cited by your local Code Enforcement official for an overgrown lawn, your first move should be to read the specific Code provision that defines “overgrown grass.” Does “overgrown” mean grass that is eight inches tall, 12 inches tall, or 24 inches tall? If the Code provision prohibits grass that is 12 inches or taller and your lawn is only 10 inches tall, then you can present a great defense that you have not violated the Code section.

CONSIDER THE RANGE OF OPTIONS AVAILABLE

I’ve found that people often want to select a course of action without ever thinking through the range of options available to resolve the problem. Your ability to select the best option and achieve an advantageous outcome will be dramatically increased when there’s a range of options on the table. While there are many ways to solve a legal problem, recognize that some may be effective and others may not.

Each potential option should be evaluated on whether there’s a sound legal basis for the strategy, who will likely oppose your strategy and why, the likelihood that the strategy will actually resolve the problem, whether the strategy could cause unintended consequences, and the expenses associated with the strategy.

SELECT A STRATEGY AND TAKE ACTION

If you’ve assembled all of the relevant facts, determined what legal standard applies, and considered the range of options, then you’re in a good position to select a strategy and take action.

If you either fail to formulate a strategy or fail to implement it, your outcome will remain in jeopardy. It’s been my experience that very few legal problems resolve themselves and inaction frequently makes matters worse.

During the course of implementing your strategy, monitor how the strategy is working and whether a course change is necessary. It’s a mistake to just charge ahead with blinders. Taking a “Damn the torpedoes” attitude will get you sunk. Remain nimble and flexible – you never know when an opportunity to achieve a more advantageous result may materialize.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Fred Reilly became an attorney in 1986 and is a Member of the California Bar Association, District of Columbia Bar Association, and Florida Bar Association. Mr. Reilly is also a Solicitor and Member of The Law Society of the United Kingdom.

He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court and United States Court of International Trade.

Mr. Reilly graduated from The London School of Economics and Political Science (Master’s degree in International Business Law), The Cumberland School of Law at Samford University (J.D.) and The Krannert School of Management at Purdue University (B.S. Management).

He practices international business and eCommerce law. Mr. Reilly frequently travels to Florida, California, London, and Moscow.

IMPORTANT NOTICE
This purpose of this blog is to inform and not to advise. The statements are general and individual facts in any given situation may alter their application or involve other laws not referred to here. You should always seek advice from a competent professional if any questions arise.

This blog is a follow-up to the caution I posted yesterday for my Facebook friends about disclosing personal information (your birth date) that could be accessed by Identity Thieves.

On Thursday, MSNBC posted an article “Details of 100 Million Facebook Users Published Online” that underscores the risks of disclosing too much information online.

According to the MSNBC article: “The personal details of 100 million Facebook users have been collected and published online in a downloadable file, meaning they will now be unable to make their publicly available information private. However, Facebook downplayed the issue, saying that no private data had been compromised.”

I personally like Facebook for one principal reason: it allows me to connect with people whom I wouldn’t have been able to reach otherwise. But I’m deeply concerned about revealing too much personal information in any online forum. There’s simply no good reason to make it easy for sensitive personal information to fall into the wrong hands.

In late 2009, Facebook made a significant shift in its privacy philosophy when Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg indicated that the social network company would periodically revise its privacy policy to stay consistent with societal norms. Many commentators took Zuckerberg’s comments to mean that Facebook would move towards making more information public. Thus, I highly recommend that you monitor future changes to Facebook’s privacy policy and remain vigilant about how your personal information will be handled.

On a related issue, I recently recommended that a Facebook friend delete a posting that was basically a profanity-laced rant against an employer. My reasoning was that Internet postings are forever and can easily come back to haunt you at some point in the future. FYI, it’s now standard procedure for attorneys involved in litigation to search Facebook for potentially damaging information about the litigants. You’ve been forewarned.

Although I admit that the following advice isn’t the kind of technical legal standard that you would expect from me, I think it has merit: Don’t post anything on Facebook that you wouldn’t want to tell your mother.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Fred Reilly became an attorney in 1986 and is a Member of the California Bar Association, District of Columbia Bar Association, and Florida Bar Association. Mr. Reilly is also a Solicitor and Member of The Law Society of the United Kingdom.

He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court and United States Court of International Trade.

Mr. Reilly graduated from The London School of Economics and Political Science (Master’s degree in International Business Law), The Cumberland School of Law at Samford University (J.D.) and The Krannert School of Management at Purdue University (B.S. Management).

He practices international business and eCommerce law. Mr. Reilly frequently travels to Florida, California, London, and Moscow.

IMPORTANT NOTICE
This purpose of this blog is to inform and not to advise. The statements are general and individual facts in any given situation may alter their application or involve other laws not referred to here. You should always seek advice from a competent professional if any questions arise.

In the past week, there’s been wild speculation on the technology news and blog sites about the claims made in a bombshell lawsuit filed against Facebook.

According to published reports, a New York man filed a lawsuit claiming that he owns a majority ownership interest in the $25 Billion company by virtue of a contract that he signed in 2003 with Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. An email from Facebook has asserted that “the claims are absurd and we strongly suspect that the contract is forged.”

The Facebook lawsuit raises five critical points that every company and entrepreneur should consider when formalizing its business relationship with a written contract.

FORMALITY COUNTS

In the Facebook case, the company has asserted that the contract is a forgery. There’s no doubt this issue will be addressed at the initial phase of the litigation. If the contract is in fact a forgery, the case will be summarily dismissed. If the contract is legitimate, the litigation will proceed on the merits to determine the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract.

Do you formalize each important business relationship with a written contract? If so, do you have a filing system for maintaining these important documents in a safe and secure place?

The appropriate degree of formality for a specific contract is dependent on the gravity of the business relationship. A relatively minor contract (i.e., a gentlemen’s wager on a sporting event with $1 is at stake) can be written on the back of a napkin or an envelope and signed by the parties. By contrast, a integrated written contract is needed when there’s a company-to-company relationship involving substantial performance obligations, the use of complex intellectual property rights, and substantial money is at stake.

If the parties to a deal ever had any reason to believe that the subject matter of their deal would someday be worth $25 Billion, then they probably would have insisted on a much more formalized written contract.

CLARITY IS CRUCIAL

The second lesson of the Facebook case is the compelling need for parties to a deal to strive for clarity in stating the rights and obligations of the contract. The rights and obligations of the parties constitute the bulk of the contractual terms.

In the context of the Facebook case, the parties should have addressed relevant rights and obligations including:

· The ownership rights related to the intellectual property, name of the venture/entity, interest in ancillary ventures/entities, and stock/shares of the venture/entity.

· Performance obligations such as who is obligated to do what, the payment of compensation, vesting of ownership rights, breach of contract, and termination of the contract.

· How to handle a dispute including alternate dispute resolution (mediation and arbitration), choice of law, choice of forum, attorney’s fees, and costs.

EXECUTION IS IMPORTANT

What are the appropriate formalities for execution of the contract? This question turns on who has authority to bind each party to the contract. If an individual will be signing the contract, then the individual has the authority to bind themselves to the contract (assuming that he/she has the requisite legal capacity).

If a party to the contract is a legal entity (i.e., a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, etc.), then the appropriate individual with authority to bind the legal entity should be executing the contract on behalf of the corporation. In short, you would want the President of a Fortune 500 company to execute an important contract, not a janitor who works at a remote branch of the corporation.

In order to make it easier to authenticate the contract in court at a later date, you should also consider whether to have multiple persons execute the contract (i.e., President and Secretary, whether there’s a need for witnesses to the execute of the contract, and whether the execution should be notarized.

ENFORCEMENT SHOULDN’T BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT

During the deal-making process, you should always contemplate what action should be taken in the event that the contract is breached. Depending upon the business relationship at issue, the parties should consider inclusion of:

· A non-compete provision that defines whether and how the parties can compete against each other in the event the relationship is terminated.

· A confidentiality provision that protects either or both parties against the unauthorized disclosure of business secrets.

· A liquidated damages provision that requires the party who violates the contract to pay a pre-established sum of money (liquidated damages).

· A provision that provides for injunctive relief so that the non-breaching party can effectively seek a court order that compels the breaching party to immediately stop violating the contract.

GET PREVENTATIVE LEGAL ADVICE

Based on the news reports of the Facebook case, it doesn’t appear that the parties to the alleged deal sought legal advice prior to striking their deal. I think its obvious that if the parties had obtained sound legal advice when the deal was allegedly negotiated, they could have avoided several glaring problems in this case:

· The degree of formality of the contract would have been commensurate with the scope of the deal.

· Whether the contract was legitimate or a forgery would likely not be at issue.

· There would be much more clarity about the rights and obligations of the parties.

· The appropriate means for enforcing the contract would be apparent.

Ultimately, the Facebook case will be resolved. Unfortunately, many of the issues raised at the initial phase of litigation could have been avoided altogether and without the necessity of time-consuming, expensive litigation. Don’t make the same mistakes in your business.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Fred Reilly became an attorney in 1986 and is a Member of the California Bar Association, District of Columbia Bar Association, and Florida Bar Association. Mr. Reilly is also a Solicitor and Member of The Law Society of the United Kingdom.

He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court and United States Court of International Trade.

Mr. Reilly graduated from The London School of Economics and Political Science (Master’s degree in International Business Law), The Cumberland School of Law at Samford University (J.D.) and The Krannert School of Management at Purdue University (B.S. Management).

He practices international business and eCommerce law. Mr. Reilly frequently travels to Florida, California, London, and Moscow.

IMPORTANT NOTICE
This purpose of this blog is to inform and not to advise. The statements are general and individual facts in any given situation may alter their application or involve other laws not referred to here. You should always seek advice from a competent professional if any questions arise.

In these tough economic times, you have to work harder than ever to make a profit.

Fred Reilly, American Attorney and English Solicitor, will present an online seminar “Make More Money – 15 Internet Business Strategies You Can Start Using Today” The free online seminar will address 15 specific internet business strategies that you can start using today to make more money:

* These strategies are either no cost or nominal cost.

* Attract new customers and increase your business with existing customers.

* These strategies are simple, easy to implement and don’t require extensive time or expertise.

* Learn how to differntiate your business from your competitors.

* Make more money.

SEMINAR DETAILS

Date: Contact Fred Reilly (fredreilly@attorney-solicitor.com) for details about an upcoming seminar.

Time: To Be Determined.

Location: Online at www.gotomeeting.com GoToMeeting is a Web conferencing tool that allows attendees to meet online rather than in a conference room.

Duration: One hour including a Question and Answer period at the conclusion of the seminar.

Who should attend? Entrepreneurs, eCommerce business owners, traditional business owners, and managers.

Seminar materials: On the day of the seminar, attendees will receive an outline (via email) that includes valuable strategies, tips, and resources.

SIGN UP

This seminar is free, but attendance will be limited to the first twelve attendees. To reserve your place, send an email to:

fredreilly@attorney-solicitor.com

Please include your name, title, company, and the reference “Seminar.” You will receive a Confirmation email containing simple instructions for using GoToMeeting, the seminar link and Meeting ID Code.

Privacy Notice. We respect your privacy. Your contact information will never be shared with or sold to anyone. Period.

ABOUT FRED REILLY

Fred Reilly has been an attorney since 1986. He’s licensed to practice law:

• In California, the District of Columbia, and Florida.

• As an English Solicitor (member of The Law Society of England and Wales).

• Before the United States Supreme Court.

• Before the United States Court of International Trade.

Fred graduated from:

• The London School of Economics and Political Science (LL.M. in International Business Law).

• Cumberland School of Law at Samford University (J.D. and Associate Editor of The Cumberland Law Review).

• Purdue University (B.S. in Management).

CONTACT INFORMATION

Fred Reilly, Esquire*
Reilly International Law Firm, P.A.
P. O. Box 2039
Haines City, FL 33845 USA
Tel. (310) 927-3954
Fax. (863) 439-5017
Email: fredreilly@attorney-solicitor.com
Web: www.attorney-solicitor.com

The hiring of an attorney is an important decision and you should not rely upon advertising alone. We urge you to review our professional qualifications and/or request a copy of our firm resume. Nothing herein is intended to constitute legal advice regarding any specific problem.

By Fred Reilly, American Attorney and English Solicitor.

Judgment debtors often think they can avoid payment of a judgment entered by a out-of-country foreign court by escaping and relocating their assets to Florida. They can run, but fortunately they can’t hide – there’s an important statutory process that enables creditors to enforce money judgments rendered by a foreign court in Florida.

The purpose of this article is to address the most important questions about enforcing an out-of-country foreign money judgment in Florida.

1. Can an out-of-country judgment rendered against a company or individual be enforced in Florida?

Yes. For example, a foreign money judgment entered in the United Kingdom against a company or individual (the judgment debtor) can be filed in Florida using the Uniform Out-Of-Country Foreign Money Judgment Recognition Act (“the Act“). Once properly filed, the judgment can be enforced against the Florida assets of the judgment debtor.

2. What is an “out-of-country foreign judgment”?

It is any judgment of a foreign state (e.g., the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands, etc.) granting or denying recovery of a sum of money, other than a judgment for taxes, a fine, or other penalty.

3. When does the Act apply?

The Act applies to any out-of-country foreign judgment that is final and conclusive and enforceable where rendered, even though an appeal may be pending or may be filed.

4. What is the process for obtaining recognition of an out-of-country judgment?

Florida law states that an out-of-country judgment is conclusive between the parties to the extent that it grants or denies recovery of a sum of money.

Florida’s statutory procedure for obtaining recognition of an out-of-country judgment requires that the judgment and an affidavit be filed with the clerk of the court and recorded in the public records in the county or counties where enforcement is sought.
After recording the judgment and affidavit, the clerk of the court mails a notice to the judgment debtor.

The judgment debtor has thirty (30) days after service of the notice to file an objection with the clerk specifying the grounds for non-recognition or non-enforceability.

Upon entry of a court order recognizing the out-of-country judgment or upon recording of a clerk’s certificate that no objection has been filed, the judgment shall be enforced in the same manner as if it was the judgment of a Florida court and shall create a lien on real estate in the county where recorded.

5. What are the grounds for non-recognition of an out-of-country judgment?

An out-of-country judgment is not conclusive if the judgment was rendered by an impartial tribunal, the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, or the foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.

There are eight (8) specific instances when an out-of-country judgment may not be recognized by a Florida court. The three most likely instances are that the judgment was obtained by fraud, the cause of action on which the judgment was based is repugnant to the public policy of Florida, and the judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive order.

6. What are the costs of this process?

The costs include the fees for filing/recording the judgment with the clerk of the court and the certified mail expenses of sending the mandatory notification to the judgment debtor.

Since the total attorney fees will largely depend on whether the judgment debtor fights the recognition process, I would charge my client on an hourly basis (US$247 per hour) and require a minimum retainer of US$2,500.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Fred Reilly’s law practice includes advising clients on international business transactions, corporations, contractual issues, real estate transactions, civil litigation and administrative proceedings.

Fred has been an attorney for more than 20 years. He is licensed to practice law in California, District of Columbia, Florida and as an English Solicitor. He has been admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of International Trade. Fred graduated from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LL.M. in International Business Law), Cumberland School of Law at Samford University (J.D. and Associate Editor of The Cumberland Law Review) and Purdue University (B.S. in Management). Fred spends time each month in Los Angeles and Central Florida. He is a member of The Beverly Hills Bar Association.

DISCLAIMER: This article and its content are intended to provide general information on legal topics and shall not serve as a solicitation for services in any jurisdiction where prohibited by law. This article is not, nor is it intended to be used as a substitute for legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice concerning your own situation. Sending an email to the owner of this website, and receiving any response thereto, does not, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship.

© Copyright 2009 by Fred Reilly. All rights reserved.