Louis Ronayne Joins Varnum Litigation Team

Varnum Welcomes Louie Ronayne

Accomplished First-Chair Litigator Brings Substantial Commercial and Automotive Experience

Varnum is pleased to announce that Louis Ronayne has joined the firm’s Litigation and Trial Practice Team. He is based in the Novi office.

An experienced litigator, Ronayne represents clients in a wide range of business and commercial litigation matters, from high-stakes automotive supplier disputes to suits involving state and local units of government. He has a background in emergency litigation including actions for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. He also represents clients in a variety of contract and real estate disputes. Ronayne has first chair trial and appellate experience, including before the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court.

Following law school, Ronayne served as a research attorney for the Michigan Court of Appeals, then clerked at the Michigan Supreme Court for Justice Brian K. Zahra. He joins the firm from Butzel Long.

“We’re pleased to welcome Louie to the firm,” said Perrin Rynders, who chairs Varnum’s Litigation Practice Team. “His strong legal acumen and wide-ranging industry experience add bench strength to our trial and litigation team.”

Ronayne graduated magna cum laude from Michigan State University College of Law, where he completed the college’s Trial Practice Institute and served as Executive Editor for the Journal of Business and Securities Law. He is a cum laude graduate of Adrian College, where he received his undergraduate degree in Political Science.

Varnum Attorneys Recognized in Top Lawyers Survey

57 Varnum Attorneys named to the 2023 List of Top Lawyers in Michigan

A total of 57 Varnum attorneys in a wide variety of practice areas have been named to the 2023 list of Top Lawyers in Michigan. The annual survey of attorneys was conducted earlier this year and has resulted in a peer-nominated list of the top lawyers across the state.

Varnum attorneys named to the list and their respective practice areas include the following, some of whom are recognized in multiple areas of law:

  • Steve Afendoulis: Litigation – Commercial
  • Scott Alfree: Health Care Law
  • Jon Anderson: Real Estate Law
  • John Arendshorst: Employee Benefits Law
  • Luis Avila: Labor and Employment Law
  • Kim Baber: Banking & Financial Service Law
  • Tom Bergh: Trusts and Estates
  • Steve Buquicchio: Bankruptcy and Creditor/Debtor Rights Law
  • Jon Bylsma: Litigation Commercial
  • Brendan Best: Bankruptcy and Creditor/Debtor Rights
  • Chris Caldwell: Trusts and Estates
  • Kathleen Cieslik: Trusts and Estates
  • Kim Clarke: Immigration Law
  • Nyal Deems: Real Estate Law
  • Jeff DeVree: Tax Law
  • Jake Droppers: Mergers and Acquisitions
  • Matt Eugster: Environmental Law
  • Linsey Gleason: Trusts and Estates
  • Bruce Goodman: Environmental Law
  • Ed Gusky: Real Estate Law
  • Rich Hewlett: Litigation – Construction
  • Scott Hill: Corporate Law
  • Bill Hineline: Employee Benefits Law
  • Robert Huff: Trusts and Estates
  • Scott Huizenga: Mergers and Acquisitions
  • Dave Khorey: Labor and Employment Law
  • Harvey Koning: Banking & Financial Service Law
  • Randy Kraker: Municipal Law
  • Kyle Konwinski: Environmental Law, Litigation – Commercial
  • Marilyn Lankfer: Trusts and Estates
  • Mike Mc Elwee: Mediation
  • Tim Monsma: Litigation – Commercial
  • Eric Nemeth: Tax Law
  • Julia Perkins: Family Law
  • Eric Post: Corporate Law
  • Laura Radle: Trusts and Estates
  • Dale Rietberg: Nonprofit/Charities Law
  • Bill Rohn: Mediation
  • Michael J. Romaya: Banking & Financial Service Law
  • Pete Roth: Mergers and Acquisitions
  • Maureen Rouse-Ayoub: Labor and Employment Law
  • Charles M. Russman: Employee Benefits Law
  • Stephanie Setterington: Litigation – Labor Employment Benefits
  • Jeff Schad: Banking & Financial Service Law
  • Joan Schleef: Banking & Financial Service Law
  • Pete Schmidt: Real Estate Law
  • Mary Kay Shaver: Banking & Financial Service Law
  • Beth Skaggs: Litigation – Labor Employment Benefits
  • John Sturgis: Real Estate Law
  • Fred Sytsma: Trusts and Estates
  • Kristen Veresh: Banking & Financial Service Law
  • Joe Vogan: Labor and Employment Law
  • Mike Wooldridge: Corporate Law
  • Sue Wyngaarden: Public Finance Law
  • Kurt Yost: Mergers and Acquisitions
  • Matt Zimmerman: Environmental Law

Research for Top Lawyers was conducted by PRS (Professional Research Services) and is based on a peer-review survey completed by certified lawyers in Michigan. Inclusion inTop Lawyers list is based solely upon one’s standing within their peer group. Listings in Top Lawyers cannot be purchased.

A complete list of attorneys recognized as Top Lawyers from West Michigan will be published in the November/December issue of Grand Rapids Magazine. DBusiness Magazine will publish a list of Top Lawyers from Southeast Michigan, also in the November/December issue.

Corporate Transparency Act: Implications for Business Startups

Corporate Transparency Act: Implications for Business Startups

Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) in January 2021 to provide law enforcement agencies with further tools to combat financial crime and fraud. The CTA requires certain legal entities (each, a “reporting company”) to report, if no exemption is available, specific information about themselves, certain of their individual owners and managers, and certain individuals involved in their formation to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the U.S. Department of Treasury. The beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements of the CTA are set to take effect on January 1, 2024. Those who disregard the CTA may be subject to civil and criminal penalties.

A recent advisory explaining the CTA reporting requirements in further detail may be found here.

While the CTA includes 23 enumerated exemptions for reporting companies, newly formed businesses (Startups) may not qualify for an exemption before the date on which an initial BOI report is due to FinCEN. As a result, Startups (particularly those created on or after January 1, 2024) and their founders and investors, must be prepared to comply promptly with the CTA’s reporting requirements.

As an example, businesses may want to pursue the large operating company exemption under the CTA. However, among other conditions, a company must have filed a federal income tax or information return for the previous year demonstrating more than $5 million in gross receipts or sales. By definition, a newly formed business will not have filed a federal income tax or information return for the previous year. If no other exemption is readily available, such a Startup will need to file an initial BOI report, subject to ongoing monitoring as to whether it subsequently qualifies for an exemption or any reported BOI changes or needs to be corrected, in either case triggering an obligation to file an updated BOI report within 30 days of the applicable event.

Startups also should be mindful that the large operating company exemption requires the entity to (i) directly employ more than 20 full time employees in the U.S. and (ii) have an operating presence at a physical office within the U.S. that is distinct from the place of business of any other unaffiliated entity. Importantly, this means that a mere “holding company” (an entity that issues ownership interests and holds one or more operating subsidiaries but does not itself satisfy the other conditions of this exemption) will not qualify. Startups may want to consider these aspects of the large operating company exemption during the pre-formation phase of their business.

Fundraising often requires Startups to satisfy competing demands among groups of investors, which can lead to relatively complex capitalization tables and unique arrangements regarding management and control. These features may cause BOI reporting for Startups to be more complicated than reporting for other small and closely held businesses. Founders, investors, and potential investors should familiarize themselves with the CTA’s reporting requirements and formulate a plan to facilitate compliance, including with respect to the collection, storage and updating of BOI.

By ensuring all stakeholders understand the BOI reporting requirements and are prepared to comply, your Startup can avoid conflicts with current and potential investors and ensure that it collects the information that it needs to provide a complete and timely BOI report.

Varnum’s Corporate Transparency Act Taskforce of attorneys and other professionals can assist you. Contact your Varnum attorney or any member of Varnum’s CTA Taskforce to learn more.

Matt Bower, Zach Meyer Present on Preparing Startups for Seed Funding at Business Law Institute

Bower and Meyer Present "Help a startup prepare for seed funding"

Varnum attorneys Matt Bower and Zach Meyer were featured presenters at the 34th Annual Business Law Institute presented by the Business Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, in cooperation with the Institute of Continuing Legal Education (ICLE). They presented on the topic “Help a Startup Prepare for Seed Funding.”

Bower and Meyer both have significant experience working with emerging companies and in the venture capital community. Their presentation covered corporate matters, intellectual property considerations, and securities law compliance. They discussed common funding techniques and documents including an overview on SAFES, convertible notes and preferred stock financings.

In addition to their corporate practices, Bower and Meyer are both involved in and have previously led the firm’s MiSpringboard program, which provides free legal services to qualified Michigan startups.

Michigan Adopts the Uniform Power of Attorney Act

Michigan Adopts the Uniform Power of Attorney Act

If you have executed a Power of Attorney (POA) to give a trusted individual the ability to access your financial accounts or sign documents on your behalf, whether in case of emergency or simply for convenience, or if you are thinking about doing so, a new law in Michigan impacts the way surrogate authority is granted. 

By executing a POA, you grant someone else important powers to act on your behalf. The person you appoint is called your “Agent.” A POA can be “Durable” or “Non-Durable.” A Durable POA can be particularly useful because, unlike a Non-Durable POA, your Agent’s authority to act on your behalf will not be terminated even if you are incapacitated. A new law in Michigan is designed to provide for increased accessibility, effectiveness, and standardization for POAs. 

The Uniform Power of Attorney Act (UPOAA) was signed into law by Governor Gretchen Whitmer on November 7, 2023, and will take effect on July 1, 2024. Given the increased mobility of the population and modernization of technology, the UPOAA codifies state legislative trends across the United States and creates a cohesive set of best practices for drafting and utilizing POAs. To date, a version of the UPOAA has been enacted in 31 states.

The UPOAA accomplishes several important objectives:

  • It promotes uniform acceptance of notarized POAs. No longer will third parties be permitted to refuse to accept a validly executed POA simply because the document didn’t clear the entity’s legal department. The UPOAA provides sanctions for persons or entities who refuse to accept an acknowledged POA. “Acknowledged” means verified before a notary public (or other individual authorized to take acknowledgements).
  • It provides protection for third parties who rely on notarized POAs. The UPOAA is designed to protect third parties who accept a notarized POA in good faith, and also provides clear circumstances where acceptance of a POA can and should be denied. If there is any doubt, the third party can request a certification or opinion of counsel as to the validity of the POA within a seven-day window of the presentment of the document. 
  • It provides a series of default rules for POAs. If the POA is executed in compliance with certain requirements, the POA will automatically be durable under the UPOAA. This is a change from current Michigan law which mandates that there be an affirmative statement as to durability in the POA. There are other helpful default rules in the UPOAA including provisions regarding the determination of incapacity, and the coordination of co-agents’ authority, successor agents, and court-appointed guardians and conservators.
  • It promotes accessibility and frees up judicial resources. Michigan has had a statutory form Will and statutory form Designation of Patient Advocate for some time. Now, there will be a statutory form Power of Attorney. The purpose of the form is to give the public easy access to creating POAs, which will decrease the necessity of guardianships and conservatorships. However, as clearly stated on the form, because of the important authority granted in POAs, individuals should use caution in preparing these important forms without the assistance of counsel.

Given these sweeping changes promulgated by the UPOAA, it’s a good time to revisit your POA. The UPOAA applies to all POAs, even those executed prior to July 1, 2024. As long as your POA was validly executed at the time it was signed, your POA will remain valid – but you may want to confirm that your POA is notarized. Many individuals executed legal documents during the pandemic when it may have been difficult to obtain a notary. If your POA is not notarized, you may want to re-execute the document before a notary to garner the additional protections that the UPOAA provides to acknowledged POAs.

Corporate Transparency Act’s Reporting Requirements: Impact on the Private Client

Cooperate Transparency Act: Impact on the Private Client

Private clients and family offices commonly create legal entities, such as limited liability companies, limited partnerships and corporations, to facilitate investment, asset management, tax planning, business succession planning, privacy, liability protection and many other purposes.  Such planning will be impacted by disclosures required by the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), set to take effect January 1, 2024. The CTA, enacted to combat illicit financial activities, brings significant regulatory changes and effectively creates a national registry for law enforcement and certain other entities of the beneficial ownership information (BOI) for many legal entities formed or registered in the U.S. (“Reporting Companies”).

A recent advisory explaining the CTA reporting requirements in further detail may be found here.

Under the CTA, Reporting Companies include limited liability companies, corporations, and any other entities created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or other similar office, whether or not the legal entity engages in any business or other commercial activity. If a legal entity meets the definition of a Reporting Company and does not qualify for an exemption, the Reporting Company will be obligated to disclose to the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) specific information about itself and the BOI of its beneficial owners and company applicants, including their full name, date of birth, complete address, and other identifying information. The CTA defines “beneficial owner” as an individual who either, directly or indirectly, exercises substantial control over the Reporting Company or owns or controls at least 25% of the ownership interests of the Reporting Company.

A trust itself is not a Reporting Company if it is not created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or other similar office (which is often the case). Regardless, if a trust exercises substantial control over the Reporting Company or holds an ownership interest in a Reporting Company and the other requirements are met, at least one individual associated with the trust will be a beneficial owner. The CTA contains specific rules under which an ownership interest held by a trust or similar arrangement is attributed for determining the individual(s) subject to the BOI disclosure requirement. The Reporting Company should attribute such ownership as follows:

  • To any individual trustee that has “the authority to dispose of trust assets.”
  • To any individual beneficiary who “(i) is the sole permissible recipient of income and principal, or (ii) has the right to demand a distribution of or withdrawal substantially all the assets from the trust.”
  • To any individual grantor or settlor who “has the right to revoke the trust or otherwise withdraw the assets of the trust.”  

For many trusts, more than one individual will meet these criteria, and, in such cases, each individual’s BOI must be reported. Even if a trust owns or controls less than 25% of the ownership interests of the Reporting Company, the Reporting Company must assess whether the trustee exercises substantial control over the Reporting Company, such as through board representation.

As noted above, certain Reporting Companies are exempt from the CTA, including certain tax-exempt entities, certain entities subject to other federal reporting, and certain large operating companies. Additionally, certain individuals who may otherwise qualify as a beneficial owner will not be required to disclose BOI if an exception applies, including minor children (if applicable, the Reporting Company may instead report information about the parent or legal guardian of the minor child). The failure to timely comply with the reporting requirements could result in civil and criminal penalties.    

The disclosure of BOI for private clients and family offices may be counter-productive to privacy and other goals and may in some circumstances necessitate further analysis and planning. Each private client, family office, and small business owner should prepare now.  Varnum’s Corporate Transparency Act Taskforce of attorneys and other professionals can assist you. Contact your Varnum attorney or any member of Varnum’s CTA Taskforce to learn more.

Michigan’s Legislature Makes Renewable Energy Goals a Reality

Michigan Legislature Makes Renewable Energy Goals a Reality

Governor Gretchen Whitmer introduced Michigan’s Healthy Climate Plan in April 2022, boldly targeting 60% of the State’s power being derived from renewables by 2030, including a 50% renewable energy standard for utilities. However, Michigan’s renewable energy goals are no longer just ambition; they are now a reality with the recent passage of renewable-friendly legislation. The package of bills (SB 271, SB 273, SB 277, SB 502, SB 519) that have cleared the Legislature, and now await the Governor’s signature to become law, do several things to advance Michigan’s clean energy goals including:

  • Set a 100% clean electricity standard by 2040
  • Require utilities to get a certain percent of electricity from renewal energy sources (like wind and solar), including: 15% through 2029, 50% by 2030 and 60% by 2035
  • Raise caps on distributed energy sources
  • Set an energy storage standard of 2.5 Gigawatts by 2030

This package of bills, being called the “Clean Energy Future Plan,” represents a momentous change in Michigan’s energy law. With the Governor expected to sign these bills in the near future, Michigan will soon join other states committed to a 100% clean energy standard. 

State Siting of Renewables in Michigan

In conjunction with the Clean Energy Future Bills, the Michigan Legislature also recently passed House Bill (HB) 5120 and HB 5121, two bills that would streamline the permitting process for renewable energy projects, making them easier to be built in Michigan. Specifically, these bills allow utility-scale wind, solar, and storage facilities to be approved by Michigan’s Public Service Commission (MPSC). Currently, local municipalities (often rural townships) are tasked with permitting utility-scale renewable energy projects in Michigan. Renewable energy developers have often been met with ardent opposition from local municipalities. 

These new bills provide three key changes that will give developers a much needed reprieve from the permitting obstacles at the local level: (1) the MPSC will have authority over wind projects generating more than 100 megawatts, and solar and battery storage projects generating more than 50 megawatts (unless a local municipality adopts an ordinance that is not more restrictive than HB 5120’s mandates and timely approves compliant applications); (2) local municipalities will not be able to enact moratoria to stall renewable energy projects; and (3) Section 7 of HB 5121 (which is tie-barred to HB 5120) allows projects already approved by a municipality between 2021 and the Bill’s enactment to be a nonconforming use that is grandfathered in, so long as a developer has spent a certain amount of money on the project’s construction costs, or obtains “substantial construction.” This last development serves as a backstop for developers that have already put money into an approved project and a municipality seeks to subsequently amend its zoning ordinance.

Because HB 5120 explicitly contains an effective date, it will take effect one year from the Governor’s signature. Conversely, because HB 5121 has no explicit effective date, and has not been given immediate effect by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, it will take effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns sine die, which took place on November 14, 2023.  As a result, HB 5121 should take effect around February 12, 2024.

Varnum—Your Trusted Legal Advisor

Varnum continues to monitor these key changes to Michigan’s energy law to provide its clients with the most current information and the legal support needed to successfully build renewable energy projects in Michigan. With our extensive experience working with renewable energy developers in Michigan, Varnum is committed to assisting developers to reach their project goals. Please look for forthcoming Varnum advisories on Michigan’s new state siting processes.  In the meantime, if you have questions about these recent developments, or about siting renewable energy projects in Michigan, please contact Seth Arthur, Dave Caldon or Peter Schmidt from Varnum’s Renewable Energy Team. 

Brendan Best Re-Appointed to Detroit Turnaround Management Association Board of Directors

Brendan Best Re-Appointed to Detroit Turnaround Management Association Board of Directors

Varnum attorney Brendan Best was recently re-appointed to the Board of Directors of the Detroit Chapter of the Turnaround Management Association. He previously served on the board from 2015 to 2021, including as president.

TMA Detroit is a non-profit association that cultivates and promotes turnaround management and corporate renewal professions to encourage, foster and promote the interests of those having a common interest in the commerce, business, trade or profession of turnaround management and corporate renewal.

Best has over 20 years of experience representing clients in insolvency-related matters across a wide array of industries. A partner on Varnum’s Bankruptcy, Restructuring and Creditors’ Rights Team, his practice focuses on representing senior secured lenders, debtors, other creditors and other stakeholders in complex Chapter 11 restructurings, out-of-court workouts and insolvency-related transactions and litigation.

Best is routinely recognized by Top Lawyers, The Best Lawyers in America® and Super Lawyers®. He is a member of the American Bankruptcy Institute and is a volunteer attorney for Access to Bankruptcy Court.

Navigating the Entrepreneurial Landscape: Exploring Acqui-Hire Strategies

The Acqui-Hire Trend: A new Path to Entrepreneurial Success

We are all familiar with the “garage-to-greatness” entrepreneurial stories of Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Jeff Bezos and the like. Left untold are the stories of brilliant, diligent entrepreneurs, perhaps with equally compelling products, who succumbed to the challenges of securing investors, resources, or good fortune before reaching the echelons of greatness. 

The Acqui-Hire Trend

Founders often dream of selling their company’s assets or stock to a large strategic buyer or going public. However, some ventures and their founders, less fortunate, may discover an alternative “exit event” through a trend known as “acqui-hiring.” This term describes the process wherein “Company A” acquires a modestly successful (and often underfunded) startup, “Company B-Minus,” primarily for the purpose of hiring its brain trust. Unlike traditional acquisitions that may seek intellectual property rights, hard assets, customers, services, or market presence, an acqui-hire primarily focuses on acquiring a team with a highly sought-after skill set.

A successful acqui-hire strategy allows Company A to swiftly assemble a team of tech-savvy innovators ready to create new products and explore fresh revenue streams. Moreover, it burnishes the CVs of the acquired talent, enabling them to present their venture not as a failure but as an “exit.” In this evolving landscape of corporate maneuvers, the emphasis shifts from conventional acquisition metrics to the cultivation and assimilation of intellectual prowess.

Potential Drawbacks

One potential downside is that the product Company B-Minus offered may be shelved in an acqui-hire situation and Company B-Minus may be shut down completely. Additionally, the purchase price in an acqui-hire acquisition will generally be much less than in a traditional acquisition. In fact, the price paid to acquire the firm is often calculated as a “price per head” without regard to any products or intellectual property which may come along in the deal. The buyer, however, must make the deal attractive enough to retain key talent and ensure continued employment post-closing. Additionally, a founder will likely need to give up their director and officer titles for a less prestigious position at Company A.

For companies engaged in potential acqui-hire deals, whether as buyers or sellers, there are several considerations.

Acquiring Companies Should Ask:

  • Will I end up with what I paid for? Will the targeted talent remain after their lock-up periods end?
  • Do the costs outweigh the benefits? How will this ROI be measured?
  • Will the deal crush the morale of loyal employees expected to work with “outsiders” who walk in with outsized salaries? Will you need to award retention bonuses or other compensation to keep your own team intact?

The Target Company Should Ask:

  • How much intellectual property (if any) should be included in the sale? What (if anything) can be carved out?
  • Is it important to continue developing the business or projects that inspired you in the first place? Is this realistic?
  • Is accepting this deal worth forgoing other potential opportunities?
  • Does the company have any outstanding obligations (debt, litigation, etc.) that need to be considered in the acquisition?
  • Will the transaction be too disruptive to staff in terms of a potential new location, new job description, cultural fit and new management?

  •  Will the board of directors and stockholders approve the acquisition? Will the purchase price satisfy current investors with at least a return of their original capital?

In essence, so long as acqui-hire strategies furnish a reliable exit strategy for enthusiastic entrepreneurs and investors, they can effectively mitigate risk and foster innovation resulting in an advantageous outcome for all parties involved.

If you would like to discuss the possibility of an acqui-hire transaction or any start-up needs, please contact your Varnum attorney.

Varnum Ranked in 2024 Best Law Firms® Guide

11 13 News Varnumrankedin2024bestlawfirmssocial Linkedin 1200x628

Firm achieves 38 Tier 1 rankings across disputes, transactions and regulatory practices.

Varnum received 62 metropolitan rankings spanning practice areas and markets in the latest edition of Best Law Firms® published by Best Lawyers®.  The 2024 report was released Nov. 2.

“Best Law Firms” rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes evaluations by clients and lawyers, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and information provided by law firms as part of a formal submission process.

During the Best Lawyers interview process, clients and peers were asked to evaluate firms based on responsiveness, understanding of the client’s business and its needs, cost-effectiveness, integrity and civility, as well as whether they would refer a matter to the firm and/or consider the firm a worthy competitor.

Varnum’s rankings for 2024 include the following:

Ann Arbor
Tier 1: Banking and Finance Law
Tier 1: Construction Law
Tier 1: Litigation – Construction
Tier 1: Real Estate Law
Tier 1: Tax Law
Tier 2: Commercial Litigation
Tier 2: Employment Law – Management
Tier 2: Family Law Mediation
Tier 2: Litigation – Labor & Employment
Tier 2: Litigation – Tax
Tier 3: Family Law
Tier 3: Labor Law – Management

Grand Rapids
Tier 1: Banking and Finance Law
Tier 1: Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
Tier 1: Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)
Tier 1: Closely Held Companies and Family Businesses Law
Tier 1: Commercial Litigation
Tier 1: Corporate Law
Tier 1: Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law
Tier 1: Employment Law – Management
Tier 1: Environmental Law
Tier 1: Family Law
Tier 1: Health Care Law
Tier 1: Labor Law – Management
Tier 1: Land Use & Zoning Law
Tier 1: Litigation – Banking & Finance
Tier 1: Litigation – ERISA
Tier 1: Litigation – Labor & Employment
Tier 1: Litigation – Municipal
Tier 1: Litigation – Real Estate
Tier 1: Litigation – Tax
Tier 1: Litigation – Trusts & Estates
Tier 1: Municipal Law
Tier 1: Real Estate Law
Tier 1: Tax Law
Tier 1: Trusts & Estates Law
Tier 2: Commercial Finance Law
Tier 2: Financial Services Regulation Law
Tier 2: Immigration Law
Tier 2: International Trade and Finance Law
Tier 2: Litigation – Bankruptcy
Tier 2: Litigation – Construction
Tier 2: Litigation – Intellectual Property
Tier 2: Litigation – Land Use & Zoning
Tier 2: Mergers & Acquisitions Law
Tier 2: Public Finance Law
Tier 2: Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers
Tier 3: Family Law MediationTier 3: Trademark Law

Tier 1: Banking and Finance Law
Tier 1: Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
Tier 1: Corporate Law
Tier 1: Family Law
Tier 1: Litigation – Trusts & Estates
Tier 1: Real Estate Law
Tier 2: Litigation – Antitrust
Tier 3: Trusts and Estates Law

Tier 1: Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law
Tier 1: Tax Law
Tier 1: Trusts and Estates Law
Tier 1: Litigation – Tax
Tier 2: Litigation – Trusts & Estates