cmcp diversity matters - fall 2014

1

MINORITY

CMCP Diversity MattersFall 2014 Newsletter

Fall 2014

CMCP Diversity Matters

1

Table of Contents

CMCP Turns 25 in Irvine - 25th Anniversary Year Celebration

On July 28, 2014 CMCP celebrated its 25th anniversary year at McCormick & Schmick’s in Irvine.The well-attended event drew members and friends from Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego

Recently Certified CA Supreme Court Questions: New Duties for Businesses

California Rule of Court 8.548 permits the Ninth Circuit to certify questions of California state law to the California Supreme Court. Here are two recently certified questions.

Page 3

Attorney Spotlight: Jerrilyn MalanaShareholder, Littler Mendelson, PC.

Jerrilyn was raised in San Diego by immigrant parents; a Filipino father and Japanese mother who pushed her and her siblings to excel.

Page 7

Attorney Spotlight: Karen PetrulakisChief Deputy General Counsel, University of California.

Karen Petrulakis hails from generations of farmers in the Central Valley of California. Karen sought to become an attorney after witnessing the fulfillment the profession gave her father, who continues to practice trust and estates and business law.

UPCOMING EVENTS

Minority Bar Coalition Unity Awards

Walk the Walk Film Screening San Diego

The State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness | Leadership Summit

CMCP Member Highlights

CMCP Members on NAPABA’s Best Lawyers Under 40 Award (BU40).

Page 13

SCOTUS Tightens Patent Standards forComputer-Implemented Inventions

At a time when patent application filings and litigation proceedings for computer-implemented inventions have reached all-time highs, this summer the U.S. Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated opinion addressing

the eligibility of such inventions for patent protection.Page 5

Business Development: SeriesLess Technology + More Silence = Happier Brains

Earlier this summer, I was delighted to find that my smart phone didn’t work in Bryce Canyon. Easily one of the most beautiful National Parks, Bryce also offers something that we don’t have much of in our lives: silence.

Page 9

Diversity Calendar

Page 17

Page 11

Pages 13-16

Fall 2014 NewsletterCMCP Diversity Matters

2

CMCP Turns 25 in Irvine25th Anniversary Year Celebrationby Michael Chung, Business and Real Estate Litigator, Law Office of Michael Chung

On July 28, 2014 CMCP celebrated its 25th anniversary year at McCormick & Schmick’s in Irvine. The well-attended event drew members and friends from Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego. As the evening progressed, CMCP board members spoke about what the organization has meant to them. Thomas Suh talked about how CMCP has been instrumental in providing attorneys with access and connections and has been very important

to him in building relationships. CMCP Secretary Patricia Lee-Gulley said that she felt “proud to be part of this growing organization because it meets the needs of attorneys.” She added that the “most valuable benefit from being a CMCP member is being able to make as many friendships and relationships as you desire.” Michael Shimokaji, the longest serving CMCP board member commented that the “business of law is about relationships and that’s what CMCP really provides-relationships where each of us is helping the next person step forward.”

Marci Rubin concluded the formal remarks by thanking everyone for coming out and stressed the importance of participation in strengthening the organization. Afterwards, CMCP members did what they do best - mingle and make connections.

Michael Chung is a business and real estate litigator based in Los Angeles. His practice focuses on commercial real estate disputes, business torts and disability access litigation.

He can be reached at (213) 700-0198 or [email protected].

-- Michael Shimokaji

Business of law is about relationships and that’s what CMCP really provides

CMCP Diversity MattersCMCP Diversity Matters

3

CA Supreme Court: New Duties for Businesses Regarding Having Defibrillators on-site; and Whether Anti-Discrimination Statutes Also Apply to Business Websitesby Michael Chung, Business and Real Estate Litigator, Law Office of Michael Chung

California Rule of Court 8.548 permits the Ninth Circuit to certify questions of California state law to the California Supreme Court. On average, this happens a handful of times per year. Over the past five years, the California Supreme Court has agreed to answer a majority of the questions certified to it by the Ninth Circuit.

This article addresses two recently certified questions that are particularly important to California businesses. Do California Businesses Have a Common Law Duty to Maintain Defibrillators On-Site?

In Verdugo v. Target Corp., Target was sued after Mary Ann

Verdugo collapsed from sudden cardiac arrest on August 31, 2008, and died at Target’s Pico Rivera location. Ms. Verdugo’s family argued that, under California law, Target had a duty to have an Automatic External Defibrillator (AED) on-site in case one of its customers had an episode of sudden cardiac arrest and needed emergency aid. Under California Health and Safety Code § 1797.196 and California Civil Code § 1714.21(d), businesses that maintain an AED on their premises, are provided immunity under specified circumstances from civil liability for acts or omissions committed in the rendering of emergency care by use of a defibrillator. On December 11, 2012, the Ninth Circuit certified to the California Supreme Court the question of whether Target had a common law duty to maintain an on-site defibrillator to treat victims of sudden cardiac arrest.

On June 23, 2014, the California Supreme Court said no. See Verdugo v. Target Corp., 59 Cal. 4th 312, 327 (2014). The Court based its decision on the fact that in evaluating whether a business is under a duty to provide precautionary measures to protect patrons against third-party criminal conduct, California cases look at (1) the degree of foreseeability that the danger will arise on the business’s premises and (2) the relative burden that providing a particular precautionary measure will have on the business. Id. at 337-38. The Court concluded that acquiring and maintaining AEDs imposed significant obligations with respect to the number, the placement, ongoing maintenance, and training of personnel, and posed more than a minor burden, while there was no showing of heightened foreseeability of sudden cardiac arrest or of an increased risk of death. Id. at 337-41. The Court also cited the fact that every state appellate court that confronted the legal question of whether a business’s common law duty to assist patrons who suffer from sudden cardiac arrest requires the acquisition and maintenance of AEDs, have concluded that no such obligation exists. Id. at 337.

Although the Verdugo court did not conclude that California common law required Target to acquire and maintain AEDs on their premises, courts in the future may force businesses to take on precautionary measures in other situations to prevent injury to their patrons where the obligations are minimal and there is a high degree of foreseeability with respect to the particular medical risk at issue.


4

Do Statutes That Prohibit Discrimination Against the Disabled Also Apply to Business Websites?

Update: On October 10, 2014, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its request for certification in Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. Cable News Network, Inc., after CNN filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal. Consequently, the question of whether business websites need to be accessible to persons with disabilities will not likely be decided by the California Supreme Court.

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) along with California’s Disabled Persons Act and the Unruh Act have been the basis of lawsuits alleging that businesses need to make changes to their physical premises to provide greater access to the disabled. In Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. Cable News Network, Inc., 742 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 2014), the Ninth Circuit grappled with the question of whether the Disabled Persons Act applies to non-physical spaces such as websites. This question arose because the Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc. (GLAD), a nonprofit organization advocating for persons who are deaf and hard of hearing, sued CNN for not captioning some of the videos that appeared on its website.

At the district court, CNN failed to dismiss the complaint on anti-SLAPP grounds. Id. at 421. CNN then appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the Disabled Persons Act only applied to websites that were associated with brick and mortar stores. Id. at 433-34. Unsurprisingly, GLAD disagreed with this interpretation of the statute. On February 5, 2014, the Ninth Circuit certified to the California Supreme Court the question of whether the Disabled Persons Act applies to non-physical places such as websites. Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. Cable News Network, Inc., 742 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2014). And on March 26, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted that request.The application of disability access laws to websites has been at issue for quite some time. The U.S. Department of Justice has long taken the position that the ADA applies to websites. For example, in Rendon v. Valleycrest Productions, Inc., 294 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2002), the Department argued against the requirement that a nexus must exist between the discriminatory conduct and a brick and mortar facility for liability to be imposed under Title III of the ADA. In 2010, the Department published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to revise the regulations implementing Title III “in order to establish requirements for making the goods, services, facilities, privileges, accommodations, or advantages offered by public accommodations via the Internet, specifically at sites on the World Wide Web (Web), accessible to individuals with disabilities.” Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities and Public Accommodations, 75 Fed. Reg. 43,460 (July 26, 2010).

Those proposed regulations have not yet seen the light of day, which makes the California Supreme Court’s decision in Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness Inc. all the more significant. If the California Supreme Court rules in favor of GLAD, even businesses that do not have a brick and mortar presence may face statutory damages and the prospect of paying plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees if they do not revamp their websites to make them accessible to the hearing impaired and other persons with disabilities. The California Supreme Court’s decision in Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness Inc. is expected by 2015.

Both Target and Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness show the potential significance of the process of certifying questions. These cases in particular also show that companies doing business with the general public in California may be subject to court-mandated requirements and duties not imposed in other states.

Michael Chung is a business and real estate litigator based in Los Angeles. His practice focuses on commercial real estate disputes, business torts and disability access litigation.

He can be reached at (213) 700-0198 or [email protected].


5

SCOTUS Tightens Patent Standards forComputer-Implemented Inventions by Mala Sahai, Principal, Alchemy IP & Tech Counsel

At a time when patent application filings and litigation proceedings for computer-implemented inventions have reached all-time highs, this summer the U.S. Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated opinion addressing the eligibility of such inventions for patent protection. With an eye toward restoring balance between promoting innovation and rewarding creativity, the Court unanimously held in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. _ (2014) (Alice), that claims directed to generically implementing a computer as an intermediary to mitigate financial settlement risk - are to an abstract idea, and thus not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. This article discusses key takeaways drawn from the Court’s opinion.

Analyze Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Using Mayo Framework

In Alice, the Court relied on the two-step framework set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. _ (2012) (Mayo) to analyze the patent eligibility of process and product claims directed to an abstract idea. In each step of that framework, the Court considered a claim’s elements individually and in combination.

The first step requires determining whether a claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept. While Section 101 of the Patent Act provides patent eligibility for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof,” the Court noted a long-standing implicit exception to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas, referring to Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. _ (2013) and Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (Bilski).

If the claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step of the framework applies. Step two involves determining whether the claim contains sufficient content to ensure that it amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.

Infer What Constitutes an Abstract Idea From Examples

Regarding the first step of the framework and patent-ineligible concepts, the Court did not specifically delineate the parameters of what constitutes an abstract idea. Instead, the Court identified cases in which claims were directed to abstract ideas. These include: hedging against the risk of price fluctuations in Bilski; converting numbers from decimal to binary form using an algorithm in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972); computing alarm limits in a catalytic conversion process with a mathematical formula in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978); and providing intermediated settlement or escrow in


6

Alice. Accordingly, abstract ideas may include fundamental economic and longstanding commercial practices, mathematical equations and formulas, algorithms, and methods of organizing human activity. These examples provide some context for assessing what may comprise an abstract idea.

Abstract Idea Plus Significantly More May Equal Patent Eligibility

The rationale for excluding laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from patent eligibility stems from the principle that such concepts serve as the building blocks for scientific and technological innovation, and encourage competitive development. The Court noted, however, that a claim involving patent-ineligible subject matter, such as an abstract idea, is not per se precluded, referring to Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). As reflected in the second step of the Mayo framework, if there is an inventive concept that transforms an abstract idea into significantly more, then a claim may be patent-eligible. According to the Court’s opinion in Alice, this may be achieved by improving the functioning of the computer itself, improving any other technology or technical field (referring to Diehr), or by a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Ideally, an invention’s contribution to knowledge in the technical field should be commensurate with the exclusivity rights that a patent would bestow.

Increase in Patent Quality and Specificity May Decrease Patent Trolling

Following Alice, there should be less activity from patent assertion entities (PAEs), more commonly known as “patent trolls.” In general, patent trolls don’t exploit their patents through manufacturing a product or implementing a process. Instead, their business model involves acquiring a slew of bargain-basement priced patents with broad-based claims — the validity of which are often questionable because they are generically directed to abstract ideas, have vague limitations, or overuse functional language (reciting what something does instead of what it is) — and then threatening or suing a third party for alleged infringement of those patents in the hopes of extracting license or settlement fees.

Patent troll activity is high when it comes to computer-implemented inventions. But that is likely to change given the landmark ruling in Alice that linking the generic use of a computer with an otherwise patent-ineligible concept, does not make a claim patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Effectively a corrective measure, it raises the standards for securing patents for computer-implemented inventions. By requiring more claim specificity, patent quality should increase. And higher quality patents should help minimize the ammunition available for patent trolls.

Mala Sahai is Principal of Alchemy IP & Tech Counselin San Francisco

415 854-0074; [email protected]


7

Attorney Spotlight: Jerrilyn Malana,Employment Law Attorney and Shareholder, Littler Mendelson, P.C. by Cassandra Mougin, Shareholder, Pettit Kohn Ingrassia & Lutz PC

Jerrilyn was raised in San Diego by immigrant parents; a Filipino father and Japanese mother who pushed her and her siblings to excel. She graduated in 1986 from the University of California, San Diego with a degree in psychology and minor in biology. She aspired to be a research scientist someday, and worked as a research assistant at various institutions including the Salk Institute.

However, she later moved to Hawaii when her husband, who was a military officer, was transferred to Hawaii. Jerrilyn had to start afresh and began a new career in Human Resources. She also obtained her M.B.A. at Chaminade University. While studying for her degree, she had the opportunity to observe a local judge and she became captivated by the legal profession. She returned to San Diego and worked as a Human Resources professional, but still had fleeting thoughts of attending law school. After an amicable divorce and the odds stacked against her, and in need of financial aid, she took the leap to enroll at California Western School of Law in 1995. She credits her former supervisor and mentor, Ina Mozer, for encouraging her to attend law school. Jerrilyn describes herself as “a bit of a fanatic” in law school, but it was this dedication that garnered her a full scholarship to California Western. In law school, she proved to be a leader and mentor to other students. She also served as Executive Editor of the Law Review. Jerrilyn graduated from law school, magna cum laude, and served as a federal law clerk for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. She joined Littler in 1999.

At Littler, Jerrilyn represents Fortune 500 clients and local businesses in all types of employment- related litigation involving claims of discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, and wage & hour violations. She also provides counseling and training to employers to avoid employment-related claims. Jerrilyn has received numerous national, regional and local attorney awards with regard to her practice in employment law. She is a member and former co-chair of Litter’s National Diversity and Inclusion Council. She is also part of the leadership team of ‘Ohana, an affinity group for Asian Pacific American and South Asian American attorneys. Jerrilyn proudly states, “At Littler, diversity and inclusion are not viewed as goals, but rather as core cultural values that are an integral component of the firm’s continued success.”

Jerrilyn has been recognized as a Trailblazer by the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association. In 2009, Jerrilyn served as the President of the San Diego County Bar Association, which is the region’s oldest and largest law-related organization with over 10,000 members. She was the first Asian Pacific American to serve as President. Currently, Jerrilyn is the President of the University of California San Diego (UCSD) Alumni Association, which represents 160,000 alums worldwide.


8

Jerrilyn is the first person of color to lead the organization. Jerrilyn also serves on the Executive Committee of the Bench-Bar Coalition in California.

Jerrilyn devotes a significant portion of her volunteer time to community and civic matters, and mentoring students and young professionals to help them to succeed. She understands the implicit message in the statement: “You can’t be what you can’t see” and the importance of having positive role models for minority students and young professionals.

Jerrilyn is a former member of the State Bar of California’s Council on Access & Fairness, which is the Bar’s “think tank” on diversity. She is a founding Advisory Board member for the Academy of Law at Crawford High School, which is a diversity pipeline program for the legal profession. Jerrilyn also serves on the Board of the National Family Justice Center Alliance, which provides technical assistance to help victims of domestic violence. She is a Master with the American Inns of Court, William B. Enright Chapter. She also serves as a Trustee for the UC San Diego Foundation. Jerrilyn continues to serve on the San Diego County Bar Association’s Bench/Bar committee and Community Service committee. She serves on the Advisory Board for the Asian Business Association. She is Co-Chair of the Friends Committee for the National Association of Women Judges 2014 Annual Conference. Jerrilyn is the former Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) Employment & Labor Relations Law Committee for the Section of Litigation. She is a past President of Pan Asian Lawyers of San Diego, and past Board Member of several organizations including the Filipino American Lawyers of San Diego, Union of Pan Asian Communities (UPAC), San Diego Asian Film Foundation, and San Diego Opera.

So what drives Jerrilyn to do what she does in the community? She states, “I have been blessed with many opportunities and have had the support of many people over the years including several mentors and sponsors. I am eternally grateful for their support, and want to give back. In fact, as attorneys, we all have unique skills to help the community, and we each have an obligation and duty to give back.” Notably, in 2010, California Western School of Law awarded Jerrilyn an honorary Doctors of Laws degree for her exemplary service to the community.

As for CMCP, Jerrilyn is proud that Littler has been a long-time supporter of the organization. CMCP offers attorneys of color a unique opportunity to engage with corporate counsel and outside counsel to build strong networks, which will ultimately help them to succeed in the legal profession. She credits CMCP for assisting her with her own business development, and helping to maintain relationships with those who share the same core values with regard to diversity and inclusion matters.

Cassandra Mougin is a Shareholder and Attorney at Pettit Kohn Ingrassia & Lutz PCin San Diego, CA

[email protected]; 858-755-8500


9

Business Development: SeriesLess Technology + More Silence = Happier Brains

by Martha Sullivan, Principal, Thornton Marketing

Earlier this summer, I was delighted to find that my smartphone didn’t work in Bryce Canyon. Easily one of the most beautiful National Parks, Bryce also offers something that we don’t have much of in our lives: silence. This combination of being disconnected from technology and being surrounded by silence has the ability to renew us and reenergize us. Several recent articles explain why our brains respond so positively to these conditions.

Modes of AttentionIn a New York Times article, Daniel J. Levitin said that “Several studies have shown that people who work overtime reach a point of diminishing returns.” If you are like many lawyers I know, it is quite possible that you are working an excessive number of hours and may not have taken a real vacation this year. Even if you did get away physically, your tech addiction might have kept you mentally connected to your work so that you never truly gave your brain a rest.

However, Levitin includes positive news in “Hit the Reset Button in Your Brain.” He says, “Our brains have two dominant modes of attention: the task-positive network and the task-negative network…The task-positive network is active when’re you’re actively engaged in a task, focused on it, and undistracted… The task-negative network is active when your mind is wandering; this is the daydreaming mode.”

Obviously, much of a lawyer’s daily work involves the task-positive network. But unless you give yourself breaks during the day, you won’t benefit from the insights that the task-negative network can provide. Levitin writes, “You might be going for a walk or grocery shopping or doing something that doesn’t require sustained attention and suddenly - boom - the answer to a problem that had been vexing you suddenly appears. This is the mind-wandering mode, making connections among things that we didn’t previously see as connected.” It’s only by being regularly disconnected from our various digital devices that these real and important connections are possible.


10

Continuous Partial AttentionI have to credit Shane Parish and his Farnam Street newsletter for bringing so many great articles to my attention. In a recent issue, he reviewed the book “The End of Absence: Reclaiming What We’ve Lost in a World of Constant Connection,” by Michael Harris. In his book, Harris mentions the phrase “continuous partial attention” that was coined by Linda Stone, way back in 1998 before multi-tasking was so prevalent and before digital devices were ubiquitous. How can we truly focus on building relationships when we are continually and equally distracted by the important and unimportant messages that pop up on our screens? How can we focus on client service or business development if we are training our brains to be distracted?

It’s not just the distraction that affects us. Being constantly connected has a serious downside. According to Dr. Gary Small, a researcher at UCLA who was quoted in the Harris book, “This atmosphere of manic disruption makes (our) adrenal glands pump up production of cortisol and adrenaline…In the short run, these stress hormones boost energy levels and augment memory, but over time they actually impair cognition, lead to depression, and alter the neural circuitry in the hippocampus, amygdala, and prefrontal cortex – the brain regions that control mood and thought. Chronic and prolonged techno-brain burnout can even reshape the underlying brain structure.”

A Few SuggestionsIf your ability to solve problems is valuable to your clients, and I’m sure it is, you may want to make the “mind-wandering mode” a priority in your life. Here are a few ways to start making changes.

n When you are in your car, turn off the radio. See how long you can be comfortable with silence.

n The next time you are waiting for someone for a meeting, try to sit quietly without checking messages for five minutes.

n Instead of letting each email message interrupt you as it arrives, experiment with responding to messages once an hour.

n Take regular short breaks during the day. Stand up, walk around, and take a few deep breaths.

n And, of course, I highly recommend starting a regular meditation practice. Even ten minutes of silence a day can make a huge difference in relieving stress and refreshing your brain.

Martha Sullivan is Principal of Thornton Marketingin San Rafael, CA.



11

Attorney Spotlight: Karen J. Petrulakis,Chief Deputy General Counsel, The Regents of the University of Californiaby Cassandra Mougin, Shareholder, Pettit Kohn Ingrassia & Lutz PC

Karen Petrulakis is Chief Deputy General Counsel in the Office of the General Counsel for The Regents of the University of California. Karen hails from generations of farmers in the Central Valley of California. Karen sought to become an attorney after witnessing the fulfillment the profession gave her father, who continues to practice trust and estates and business law with her older brother in Modesto. Karen obtained her Juris Doctorate from Stanford Law School. After law school, she joined the San Francisco firm Folger, Levin & Kahn, a firm that boasted an unusually large percentage of woman attorneys and partners. She credits this environment for developing her awareness of the benefits of a diverse workplace. In 2002, she became a partner at the firm. In 2009, the firm merged with Crowell

& Moring, LLP, where Karen was a partner in the firm’s Litigation Group and Labor and Employment Group. She represented universities and municipalities, as well as private companies in a wide range of industries, including technology, travel and hospitality, retail and financial services.

In 2011, Karen joined the Office of General Counsel (OGC) for The Regents of the University of California as Deputy General Counsel for Litigation, Labor and Employment. In July 2012, she assumed additional responsibility for overseeing the Governance section. In this position, Karen was responsible for managing 23 experienced lawyers and exercising oversight over a broad range of litigation, as well as employment, benefits and labor law and public accountability and governance/ board issues.

In 2013, Karen was promoted to Chief Deputy General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel, Litigation. The OGC currently employs 86 attorneys, including 55 lawyers in the system wide offices in Oakland, and 31 lawyers at the university campuses and medical centers. In her current role, Karen continues to oversee litigation and consults on politically sensitive and high visibility legal issues across all practice areas. She is also a key participant in budget planning, heads implementation of OGC’s strategic plan, and participates in preparing reports to the Regents on outside legal expense and settlement costs.

The UC is committed to promoting diversity in its students, faculty and staff. President Janet Napolitano is the first woman President of the University of California. Reflecting the values of the broader UC Community, the OGC strives for a diverse employee population, as well as diversity among outside counsel, and supports flexible and part-time work schedules. Two-thirds of its 86 attorneys are women, and half of the leadership team are women. Recently, on behalf of the OGC, Karen accepted the Myra Bradwell Award from the Woman Lawyers Association of Los Angeles for its efforts in promoting and advancing women lawyers in its organization. In 2012, the OCG received The Recorder’s In-House Legal Department of the Year award in the category of “Diversity and Quality of Life.”


12

While California Proposition 209 effectively banned preferential treatment based on race in the public university system, the UC has endeavored to create race-neutral programs to provide support services and increase the success of all students, faculty and staff. Karen, together with other attorneys in the OGC, provides counsel to campus leadership to encourage race-neutral programs and initiatives to support underrepresented students, faculty and staff, while remaining compliant with Proposition 209. Several campuses provide academic support services for students from low-income backgrounds, students whose parents did not graduate from college, students from underrepresented groups, immigrant students, international students, transfer students, students who are parents, and students who are underrepresented in certain fields of study. The UC also supports programs directed to assist children K-12 in preparing for college, advancing a college-bound culture, financial counseling, building community and support networks.

The UC has been in a unique position to collect data on diversity both pre- and post-Proposition 209. Karen participated with a team of in-house lawyers and outside counsel in preparing amicus curiae briefs detailing the University’s experiences under Proposition 209, submitted to the United States Supreme Court in 2012 and 2013 in Fisher v. Texas, 570 U.S _ (2013) and Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S._ (2014). The Schuette case examined Proposal 2, a Michigan ballot initiative passed in 2006 that banned the consideration of race in admission to state-funded institutions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit deemed the proposal unconstitutional in November 2013, but in a 6 to 2 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the proposal in April 2014. The Supreme Court plurality phrased the issue as whether and in what manner voters in the States may choose to prohibit the consideration of racial preferences in government decisions, in particular with respect to school admissions.

The University of California’s amicus brief is discussed in the dissenting opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor and joined by Justice Ginsburg in the Schuette case. The dissent cites the immediate and precipitous decline in the admission and enrollment rates of underrepresented minority students after Proposition 209, and the declines in enrollment of underrepresented minority students in professional and graduate schools. The dissent also notes that these declines occurred despite substantial efforts by the University of California to increase diversity in race-neutral ways during a period in which underrepresented minority populations increased significantly in California.

When asked about the challenges of promoting diversity after Proposition 209, Karen states “part of achieving diversity is leadership and raising awareness of its value to the institution.” She reflects on the fact that some of her most influential mentors have been men. Indeed, it is true that championing diversity is a state of mind, not dependent upon one’s race or ethnic background. While preferential treatment based on race is not permitted, the UC endeavors to reach many different sectors of society, including underrepresented races who need support to enter and remain at public colleges, through the implementation of broad-based programs and initiatives. The key to promoting diversity post - Proposition 209, is creating an awareness in underrepresented communities of the resources available - not only at the UC but also in local communities - to prospective and current students, faculty and staff.

Cassandra Mougin is a Shareholder and Attorney at Pettit Kohn Ingrassia & Lutz PCin San Diego, CA



13

CMCP Member Highlights

The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) has selected 21 attorneys

to receive the 2014 Best Lawyers Under 40 Award (BU40). The BU40 recognizes talented

individuals in the Asian Pacific American (APA) legal community who are under the age of 40

and have achieved prominence and distinction in their respective fields while demonstrating

a strong commitment to the community at relatively early stages in their careers. The BU40

Award will be presented on November 8, 2014, during the 2014 NAPABA Annual Convention in

Scottsdale, Arizona. Four of the 21 Best Under 40 are CMCP

CMCP Members on NAPABA’s 2014 Best Lawyers Under 40Miriam Kim, Munger, Tolles & Olson

Vasu Muthyala, O’Melveny & Myers LLPQuyen Ta, Keker & Van Nest LLP

Michele Wong, Microsoft Corporation

Save the DateMinority Bar Coalition - 2014 Unity Awards

CMCP Diversity Matters Fall 2014 Newsletter

14


15

The State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness

The State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness

Presents a

Leadership SummitOctober 30-31, 2014

Conference Registration Information

Location:California Judicial Council 455 Golden Gate AvenueSan Francisco, California

Featured Speakers:Chief Justice Tani Cantil-SakauyeCongresswoman Jackie Speier

Creating Leaders for the 21st Century

Fall 2014 Newsletter

16

LEADERSHIP SUMMIT: A must-attend event for aspiring or established LEADERS in the legal profession!

Summit Highlights• What it takes to become a leader

• Bar association leadership opportunities

• Navigating the process for appointed positions

• Attorneys as political leaders

• Multiple strategies for becoming a judge

• Non traditional settings for lawyers

• Opportunities in academia

• Attorneys as community activists

• Tips for career and professional development

• Life lessons from lawyer leaders

All attorneys are looked at as leaders. Whether it is your child’s sports team, your family or

your community — you, regardless if it is by choice or not, will rise to a leadership role.

Summit Benefits• Sharpen your leadership skills for business, career,

community, and personal development success.

• Learn inside advancement strategies for bar leaders, judges, academics, community leaders, partners, general counsel, and more.

• Build relationships with leaders in the law.

What’s Inside

Program Schedule: Thursday pages 3-7 Program Schedule: Friday pages 8-9 Leadership Summit Planning Committee page 10 Registration and Hotel Information page 11 Registration Form and Information page 12

Do you know what it takes to be a leader?

Do you have the proper leadership skills?

Are you ready to lead in the 21st century?

17

October 15, 20148:00am - 4:00pmNAWJ 2014 Annual Conference: Protecting and Advancing Meaningful Access to JusticeCalifornia Women LawyersThe Westin Gaslamp Quarter San DiegoRead more

October 29, 20146:00pm - 9:00pmFBA/OC Annual Judges’ NightOrange County Bar AssociationFairmontNewport BeachRead more

November 6 - November 9, 2014NAPABA Convergence 2014 ConventionNational Asian Pacific American BarAssociationPhoenix / ScottsdaleArizonaRead more

November 26, 20147:00pm - 1:00amAnnual Thanksgiving Cocktail Sip FundraiserBlack Women Lawyers Association of Los AngelesW HollywoodLos AngelesRead more

October 23, 20146:00pm - 9:00pmIndustry NetworkingBeverly Hills Bar AssociationThe Lock & KeyLos AngelesRead more

October 17, 20146:00pm - 9:00pmAPI Legal Outreach 39th Anniversary CelebrationKorean American Bar Association of Northern CaliforniaEvent Center at St. Mary’s CathedralSan FranciscoRead more

November 7, 20149:00am - 5:00pmBarristers Annual MeetingBar Association of San Francisco BASF Conference CenterSan FranciscoRead more

February 5, 2015Save the date: Out & Proud Corporate Counsel Award ReceptionThe LGBT BarSan DiegoRead more

November 12, 20146:00pm - 8:00pmMinority Bar Coalition 2014 Unity AwardsMinority Bar CoalitionUC Hastings College of the LawSan FranciscoRead more

October 23, 20145:30pm31st Anniversary DinnerAsian American Advancing Justice The Westin BonaventureLos AngelesRead more

October 16, 20146:30pm - 9:30pmMentor / Mentee MixerSouth Asian Bar Association of Southern CaliforniaCafé NostraLos AngelesRead more

December 6, 2014All DayAnnual Gala Dinner & DanceCharles Houston Bar AssociationOakland Marriott City CenterOaklandRead more

November 12, 20145:30pm - 7:30pmFall Member MixerOrange County Bar Association Mastro’s SteakhouseCosta MesaRead more

October 30, 20146:00pm - 9:00pmHalloween Eve Fundraising Extravaganza for LYRICBay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom The Drake LoungeSan FranciscoRead more

October 23, 20146:30pm - 8:30pmLACBA Foundation GalaLos Angeles County Bar AssociationBel Air Bay ClubPacific PalisadesRead more

Diversity Calendar

Fall 2014 Newsletter

19

MINORITY

CMCP Diversity MattersFall 2014 Newsletter

Fall 2014

© Copyright 2014California Minority Counsel Program

465 California Street, Suite 635San Francisco, CA 94104

Tel: 415-782-8990 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.cmcp.org

cmcp diversity matters - fall 2014

Documents

cmcp board members

business law

business of law

california supreme court

university of california

anniversary year celebrationon

business development

attorney spotlight