MCLEZ online continuing legal education courses are for Mississippi attorneys who want to make the most of their time and money. For as little as $19.99 per course, easily earn Mississippi CLE credit online through courses which have been produced in a variety of legal subjects that matter to you.
Try a course for free before you make your purchase with our Free CLE program. To easily fulfill all of your allowable online CLE hours, see our Mississippi Bundles page under State CLE Bundles.
Whether you're a business owner concerned with making the right distinctions when engaging people to work with/for you, or a lawyer responsible for advising clients on the contractor v. employee distinction, this presentation could save you a lot of grief and money down the line.
Marin County-based employment lawyer Diana Maier and Carlos E. Torres, a Hearing Officer for the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), discuss which factors matter most in deciding how to classify workers in light of recent legal decisions that are shifting those factors. In addition to covering a broad overview of the contractor v. employee debate, they also discuss ethical considerations for lawyers considering the question of contractor classification, and assess whether the sharing economy is due for extinction in light of recent rulings against companies such as Uber.
Course Agenda
Frequent Terms and Their Meanings
Principal versus Employer
Worker/Contractor/Consultant versus Employee
Central Questions
What are some ethical considerations to keep in mind as we review the material?
Why are we here?
Factors in classification
Advantages and disadvantages of each classification
Given that this is a subjective standard, what ethical considerations exist for attorneys who need to advise others about this? Complicated by the fact that 1099 is less expensive.
Do you pick the argument most conducive to the business and just go with that?
How do the political/social factors come into play?
Are there law and policy objectives lawyers have a duty to protect?
If there are, has current law accomplished those, or have we gone too far?
Cases: Practicing the Material
Case #1: Client Engaging New Service Providers
Case #2: Corporate Employer
Case #3: Domestic Employer
Wrap Up
Standard is subjective ? makes it a tricky ethical issue for lawyers
Government prefers employee status
Back up a decision to make someone a contractor by making a file, contract, etc. and know there?s a risk
Government most often finds out via an obstructed claim, but there are many ways
Recent indications show government is only going to get more strict in enforcement
Course Credit per State
AZ - General: 1.0 Credits CA - General: 1.0 Credits CT - General: 1.0 Credits FL - General: 1.0 Credits IL - General: 1.0 Credits MO - Self Study: 1.2 Credits MS - General: 1.0 Credits NJ - General: 1.2 Credits NY - General: 1.0 Credits PA - Distance Learning: 1.0 Credits TN - General: 1.0 Credits WA - General: 1.0 Credits WV - General: 1.2 Credits
Course Presenter(s)
Diana Maier
Diana Maier is an employment and privacy law expert who founded The Law Offices of Diana Maier, PC, a San Francisco Bay Area company that provides exceptional customer service in privacy and employment law. Diana and her team advise companies on the legality of their workplace privacy and employment practices, litigate cases when needed, and conduct workplace investigations. Diana is certified in both European Union and US privacy laws and is a fluent Spanish-speaker.
Diana attended Stanford Law School and graduated in 1998. She received a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service, magna cum laude, from Georgetown University in 1992.
Diana began her legal career as a Public Defender for Santa Clara County, where she spent each day in the courtroom defending misdemeanor, felony, and three strike cases. She enjoyed great success in winning trials for her clients and felt that she had found her ?calling? in life. But in 2003, Diana decided to transition to a career that was more sustainable for family life, and she began practicing employment law. She joined forces with the plaintiffs? employment law firm Bushnell, Caplan & Fielding, LLP, which later became Bushnell, Caplan, Fielding & Maier, LLP. Diana left the firm in 2008 in order to launch the Law Offices of Diana Maier and focus more on the defense side of employment work, particularly litigation preventative work.
In early 2013, Diana began working as outsourced In-House Counsel for Labor and Employment and Privacy Law for Quantum Corporation in Silicon Valley. To handle this role more skillfully, Diana earned two privacy credentials, CIPP/US and CIPP/E, through the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP). Diana?s CIPP/US and CIPP/E certifications represent her dedication to thoroughly understanding global privacy laws for the benefit her clients. By knowing and applying privacy and data protection laws and regulations in the United States and Europe, Diana is able to ensure privacy compliance on a global scale.
Diana is a frequent speaker and writer on an enormous range of topics in employment and privacy law. She presents a quarterly public webinar (which can be found on her website under ?Lunchtime Legal Chats?) and also frequently speaks to the Marin County & San Francisco Bar Associations, as well as numerous non-attorney organizations. She has been published in The Recorder, the ABA Journal, and countless online publications, and she is often cited as an expert in news stories pertinent to employment and privacy law. You can find handouts from her presentations and articles featuring her at www.dianamaierlaw.com/resources. Diana is the former Chair of the Marin County Bar Association Labor and Employment section, and she serves as an advisor in the areas of employment law and privacy to Casetext, a legal start-up organization in Silicon Valley.
Diana's legal hobbies are blogging on employment and privacy law issues and exploring the practice of compassionate law, the idea that lawyers can be problem solvers and healers of conflict rather than just combatants for hire. Diana especially enjoys serving on the Board and heading up the Fundraising Committee of OneJustice, a California based legal non-profit that provides legal services to marginalized populations who otherwise wouldn?t have access to an attorney.
You can read Diana?s blog at www.dianamaierlaw.com/employment-and-privacy-law-blog-by-diana-maier/ and also read about her talented staff at www.dianamaierlaw.com/about/staff-bios/. Her email is diana@dianamaierlaw.com, and her phone number is 415-515-1707. In addition, you can find her on LinkedIn and on Twitter under @DianaMaierLaw, to name just a few social media sites where Diana likes to ?hang out? and talk law.
Course Price:
$29.99
Conflicts of Interest in the Practice of Law: Causes and Cures
Conflicts of Interest in the Practice of Law: Causes and Cures Details
Price:
$19.99
Course Description
In this one hour program, Richard E. Flamm, the author of the new treatise "Conflicts of Interest in the Practice of Law: Causes and Cures" will discuss what the term "conflicts of interest" means, the various ways in which conflicts can arise for counsel, the disciplinary and other than disciplinary consequences of engaging in conflicted representation, and how conflicts can sometimes be avoided or "cured." Mr. Flamm will briefly touch upon some of the most important conflict of interest rules.
Course Agenda
My Background
Who I am
How I got into this business
Books\Teaching\Consulting
What is a Conflict of Interest?
Dates to Book of Matthew
17th Century Application to lawyers
No Ethical Rules existed to define
Case law definitions (John Marshall)
Restatement definition
My definition (what the applicable ethical rules say)
(we will get to what the rules say a conflict is, before doing so I want to discuss:)
Possible Consequences of Conflicts Representation
Discipline (types of possible discipline)
Admonition
Suspension
Disbarment
No discipline (some jurisdictions, including California)
The Rules Suggest that discipline is the only possible consequence of a rule violation:
CRPC Rule 1-100: ?The following rules are intended to regulate professional conduct of members of the State Bar through discipline?These rules are not intended to create new civil causes of action. Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to create, augment, diminish, or eliminate any substantive legal duty of lawyers or the non-
disciplinary consequences of violating such a duty.?
ABA Model Rules used to say essentially the same thing. Now Scope Note 20 reads: ?Violation of a Rule should not itself give rise to a cause of action against a lawyer nor should it create any presumption in such a case that a legal duty has been breached. In addition, violation of a Rule does not necessarily warrant any other nondisciplinary remedy, such as disqualification of a lawyer in pending litigation. The Rules are designed to provide guidance to lawyers and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies.?
But most of the consequences of conflicted representation are other than disciplinary
Decision to Refrain from Handling Representation
Challenges to Representation
Disqualification Motions
Injunction Actions
Opposition to Applications for Employment (Pro hac vice)
Actions for Malpractice/Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Disgorgement Actions
(Aside: Qualification Motions)
Possible Consequences for Innocent Clients
Loss of counsel/Loss of money/Delay
Loss of work product (turnover)
Prejudice to their case
Kinds of Conflicts
Conflicts involving current clients
Joint/Dual/Multiple Representation Conflicts
Unrelated Matter Conflicts
Model Rule 1.7(a): ?Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.?
Conflicts involving Former Clients
The Former Client Conflict Rule Generally
Model Rule 1.9(a): ?A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.?
The Substantial Relationship Test
Development (pre ethics rules)
Poorly defined
Different Approaches
Personal Interest Conflicts
Pecuniary Interest Conflicts
Example: Business Transactions Rule
Rule 1.8(a) ?A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless: (1) the transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client?(2) the client is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel on the transaction; and (3) the client gives informed consent??
Relationship Conflicts
Familial Relationships
Sexual Relationships
Model Rule 1.8(j): ?A lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced.?
Other types of Conflicts
Advocate-Witness Conflicts
Issue Conflicts
?Finite Pie? Conflicts
Prospective Client Conflicts
Model Rule 1.18? ?(a) A person who consults with a lawyer about the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client. (b) Even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has learned information from a prospective client shall not use or reveal that information, except as Rule 1.9 would permit with respect to information of a former client. c) A lawyer subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter??
Model Rule 1.10(a): with certain exceptions ?(a) While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7 or 1.9??
Avoiding Conflicts
Declining to Take on Conflicted Representation
Before you can decline, need to detect: Conflicts checks
Other Means for Avoiding Conflicts
e.g., client?s consent not to name a party/include a cause of action
Curing Conflicts
Consent
Why consent is a cure
Model Rule 1.7 (b) ?Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) the representation is not prohibited by law; (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and (4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.?
The need for informed consent
?Waiver Letters?
Requirements in addition to informed consent
Non-consentable conflicts
Screening (10 minutes)
History of Screening Defense
Evolution of ABA View of Screening (2009)
Remember what model rule 1.10(a) says? But a law firm can act adversely to the interests of a party even though a lawyer at the firm could not if: [Model Rule 1.10(a)(2)]: ?the prohibition is based upon Rule 1.9(a) or (b) and arises out of the disqualified lawyer?s association with a prior firm, and (i) the disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom??
The permissibility of screening
The California rule (courts never rushed to adopt screening)
Timely and Effective Screening
Types of Screens:
Chinese Wall
Cone of Silence (get smart!)
Course Credit per State
AK - Ethics: 1.0 Credits AZ - Ethics: 1.0 Credits CA - Ethics: 1.0 Credits FL - Ethics: 1.0 Credits IL - Professional Responsibility: 1.0 Credits MS - Ethics: 1.1 Credits MT - Ethics: 1.0 Credits ND - Ethics: 1.0 Credits NY - Ethics: 1.0 Credits WA - Ethics: 1.0 Credits WV - Ethics: 1.3 Credits
Course Presenter(s)
Richard Flamm
Richard E. Flamm, a 1981 Rutgers Law School graduate, is a
nationally-recognized expert in the field of legal ethics. A litigator for more
than 20 years, since 1995 Mr. Flamm has concentrated on his Berkeley California-based law and consulting practice. In his practice, Mr. Flamm provides representation, advice and expert witness testimony with respect to legal and judicial ethics, legal malpractice, and breach of fiduciary duty matters -- with an emphasis on legal, judicial, and quasi-judicial disqualification motions and appeals.
In his capacity as an expert witness, Mr. Flamm has testified, either in court or by way of affidavit, in dozens of cases involving matters of legal and/or judicial ethics. Mr. Flamm's extensive client list includes many of the nation's leading corporations and law firms.
Mr. Flamm is the author of two highly-acclaimed treatises: Lawyer Disqualification: Conflicts of Interest and Other Bases, and Judicial Disqualification: Recusal and Disqualification of Judges, which has been widely relied on by state and federal courts throughout the country. Both works are published by Banks and Jordan Law Publishing: www.banksandjordan.com. He has also authored numerous scholarly articles on conflicts of interests, disqualification and related subjects for law reviews and other publications.
We live in a surveillance world. The technology exists for everyone to watch everyone. The technology exists for us to be connected online all the time. Is this what we want?
In this course, attorney Deborah Gonzalez presents an overview of new legal concerns regarding cyber-stalking, cyber harassment, and cyber bullying. Ms. Gonzalez will discuss how new consumer technology such as wearable tech, which is getting smaller and smaller, with the capabilities of recording audio and video without detection, along with the viral nature of social media, is leaving more and more people vulnerable to various types of online abuse. These types of issues have caused states to revise their current general harassment statues, to include language addressing electronic communications. Ms. Gonzales will cover some of these updates as she discusses how various states are choosing to approach these issues. Ms. Gonzalez will also cover several cyber-bullying and cyber-harassment cases, as well as explain the difference between the two. Ms. Gonzalez will conclude the presentation with a brief discussion about current cyber-voyeurism and cyber-revenge porn laws.
Course Agenda
Setting the Context
Cyber-Harassment
Cyber-harassment usually pertains to threatening or harassing email messages, instant messages, or to blog entries or websites dedicated solely to tormenting an individual.
Two approaches for state laws:
Include language addressing electronic communications in general harassment statutes; or
Create stand-alone cyber-harassment statutes.
47 U.S. Code § 223, Communications Decency Act, rephrased to include any telecommunications device.
New York Penal Code, 240.3
§ 240.30 Aggravated harassment in the second degree.
Florida, 784.048, 2014
Another definition connects this to a violation of anti-harassment/anti-discrimination policies (like Civil Rights) via an email, online post, Tweet, or other electronic communication.
Social Media Policies
Cyber Harassment: Tips
Cyber-Stalking
Cyber-stalking is the use of the Internet, email or other electronic communications to stalk, and generally refers to a pattern of threatening or malicious behaviors
Based on a posing credible threat of harm.
Sanctions range from misdemeanors to felonies.
18 U.S.C. § 875(c) makes it a federal crime, punishable by up to five years in prison and $250,000 fine, to transmit any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another.
Section 875(c) prohibits the actual transmission of a threat, which is defined "objectively" as a statement which a reasonable person would understand as threatening bodily injury.
§ 875(c) applies only to "true threats" which are not protected by the First Amendment.
Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969)
Such protected speech includes "political hyperbole" or "vehement," "caustic," or "unpleasantly sharp attacks" that fall short of true threats.
Georgia Code, 16-5-90, 2014
Virginia, 18-2-60, 2002
§ 18.2-60. Threats of death or bodily injury to a person or member of his family; threats to commit serious bodily harm to persons on school property; penalty.
North Carolina, 14-196.3, 2000
§ 14-196.3. Cyber-stalking.
U.S. v. Elonis, October 2014
Unwanted Sexual Contact Online
International Cyber-Stalking
Cyber-Bullying
Most people consider this in regards to minors and/or students. However there are a series of laws referring to ?workplace cyber-bullying.?
Cyber-bullying or Cyber-Harassment?
Cyber-bullying State Laws:
Colorado, HB 1036, 2005
California, AB86, 2008
Virginia, HB1624, 2009
Georgia, SB250, 2010
#Gamergate, August 2014
Zoe Quinn, software developer of the game ?Depression Quest,? a text-based game partially based on her own experience with depression, in 2013.
Victim of online death threats and harassing posts.
Cyber-Voyeurism
Video-Voyeurism: The use of small micro cameras to observe and monitor another person.
Cyber-Voyeurism: Controlling those cameras via online or wireless connections and can include recording and posting the videos on social media or other Internet sites.
State Statutes include:
Unlawful photographing
Voyeurism
Unauthorized videotaping
Eavesdropping
Peeping or Spying
Disorderly Conduct
Various Privacy laws
Various Stalking laws
Intimate Partner Cyber-Violence
IPV encompasses domestic violence, sexual violence, and stalking that targets a current or former spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, or significant other.
IPCV encompasses the above through the use of technology, including the Internet, social media, email, texting, etc.
Cyber-Revenge Porn
CA v Iniquez, 2014 Conviction
Noe Iniguez, convicted of the charge of distributing "revenge porn" via the internet; 1 year in jail
CA Revenge Porn Law?s requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that:
the accused photographed or recorded an image of one or more intimate body parts of an identifiable person under circumstances where the parties agree or understand that the image is to remain private and the accused subsequently distributed the image with the intent to cause serious emotional distress and the depicted person did suffer serious emotional distress. CA, one of 13 states that have enacted cyber-exploitation laws. CA eCrime Unit: prosecuting operators of cyber-exploitation websites
Course Credit per State
AK - Voluntary: 1.25 Credits AZ - General: 1.25 Credits CA - General: 1.25 Credits CO - General: 1.4 Credits FL - Technology: 1.5 Credits IL - General: 1.0 Credits MO - Self Study: 1.4 Credits MS - General: 1.2 Credits MT - Self Study: 1.25 Credits ND - Self Study: 1.25 Credits NY - General: 1.0 Credits WA - General: 1.25 Credits WV - General: 1.4 Credits
Course Presenter(s)
Deborah Gonzalez
Deborah Gonzalez, Esq. is the founder of Law2sm, LLC, a new legal consulting firm focusing on helping its clients navigate the legal issues relating to the new digital and social media world.
Deborah graduated from New York Law School. Following graduation, she built a successful boutique practice in New York City, focusing on the arts, music and entertainment scene. In 2007, Deborah relocated to Georgia where she was employed by the University System of Georgia. In 2008 she was granted reciprocity to practice law in Georgia.
Deborah's practice has taken her from an inner-city arts community center in NYC to a sidewalk café in Eastern Europe; from preparing programs for diplomats in the EU to assisting medical missions with refugee communities in Thailand; from protecting against music piracy in the US to protecting against bio-piracy in South America. And now it is transporting her beyond the Internet to the social space where the physical and digital dimensions of her clients co-exist and where she can leverage her legal expertise to their benefit.
Deborah enjoys engaging with those around her - so social media is a natural fit. But it is her skill in being able to connect the dots to understand the next big paradigm shift in global communication and legal application that makes her a leader in social media law. Deborah serves as Chair of the GA Bar Association's Annual Program on Social Media and the Law and serves as a social media legal liaison for social media marketing companies and their clients (such as Chick-fil-A and Nestle). In addition, Deborah speaks on the legal issues relating to intellectual property; art, music, and digital entertainment law; and social media legal trends and practices in various venues throughout the United States and abroad.
This session provides an overview of the practice of drafting and negotiating software development agreements. Topics to be covered include: pros and cons of waterfall vs. agile approaches to software development; myths of SDAs; SDA clauses of interest; term definitions; warranties; intellectual property concerns; breach of contracts and possible remedies; negotiation styles; negotiation tips for SDA?s; and a list of resources for future reference, including SDA examples and checklists.
Course Agenda
Software Development
Waterfall vs. Agile Software Development
Agreement Components
The Software Development Agreement (SDA)
Myths of SDA?s
Contract Requirements
SDA Clauses of Interest
Points of Interest
Definitions
Pricing/Payment
Exclusivity Clauses
Disclosure/Confidentiality Requirements
Security Clauses
Indemnity Clauses
Assignments
Termination
State Law Jurisdiction
Warranties
Insurance
IP Issues
Make it present tense ?hereby assigns? not future tense
?Work for hire? language is ineffective without a specific transfer of the copyrights
Sublicensing, Transferability
What about a merger? Can that breach non-assignment provisions?
In US: each joint copyright owner may commercialize a copyrighted work WITHOUT their joint owner?s consent, but must account for licensing royalties and may not destroy the value of the work.
Address this in your SDA.
IP Issues
Software Escrow
Breach of Contracts
Remedies
Negotiating Tips
Course Credit per State
AZ - General: 1.25 Credits CA - General: 1.25 Credits CO - General: 1.2 Credits CT - General: 1.5 Credits FL - General: 1.5 Credits IL - General: 1.25 Credits MO - Self Study: 1.5 Credits MS - General: 1.3 Credits NH - General: 1.31 Credits NJ - General: 1.6 Credits NY - General: 1.5 Credits WA - General: 1.25 Credits WV - General: 1.58 Credits
Course Presenter(s)
Deborah Gonzalez
Deborah Gonzalez, Esq. is the founder of Law2sm, LLC, a new legal consulting firm focusing on helping its clients navigate the legal issues relating to the new digital and social media world.
Deborah graduated from New York Law School. Following graduation, she built a successful boutique practice in New York City, focusing on the arts, music and entertainment scene. In 2007, Deborah relocated to Georgia where she was employed by the University System of Georgia. In 2008 she was granted reciprocity to practice law in Georgia.
Deborah's practice has taken her from an inner-city arts community center in NYC to a sidewalk café in Eastern Europe; from preparing programs for diplomats in the EU to assisting medical missions with refugee communities in Thailand; from protecting against music piracy in the US to protecting against bio-piracy in South America. And now it is transporting her beyond the Internet to the social space where the physical and digital dimensions of her clients co-exist and where she can leverage her legal expertise to their benefit.
Deborah enjoys engaging with those around her - so social media is a natural fit. But it is her skill in being able to connect the dots to understand the next big paradigm shift in global communication and legal application that makes her a leader in social media law. Deborah serves as Chair of the GA Bar Association's Annual Program on Social Media and the Law and serves as a social media legal liaison for social media marketing companies and their clients (such as Chick-fil-A and Nestle). In addition, Deborah speaks on the legal issues relating to intellectual property; art, music, and digital entertainment law; and social media legal trends and practices in various venues throughout the United States and abroad.
In this program seasoned attorney and Chief Compliance Officer Charles A Christofilis provides attorneys with an overview of the laws and rules which govern the area of compliance, the many legal areas in which the compliance officer must operate, the "four pillars" of compliance, and numerous case examples in which inadequate compliance has resulted in major adverse consequences for companies.
He addresses how to develop. Implement and test a Compliance Program in virtually and industry, and does a deep dive into the financial services and public company space. Specifically, the roles of the SEC and other agencies, the Investment Advisers Act, the Anti-Money Laundering provisions under the Patriot Act (with numerous examples), the FCPA and the necessity of internal audits and mock examinations.
Finally, he concludes with how to manage regulatory examinations and investigations as opposed to more traditional civil or criminal litigation, and respond to compliance failures from a crises management perspective when they occur.
Course Agenda
Why Compliance is increasingly important
How to develop, implement and test a Compliance Program;
Financial, Healthcare, IT and Public company (SOX) Implications)
Four Pillars of Compliance:
Controls;
Testing;
Ownership; and
Training.
Annual Review Process;
Liability / Conflicts;
Civil, Criminal and Reputational Implication / Crises Management.
Course Credit per State
AK - Voluntary: 2.0 Credits AZ - General: 2.0 Credits CA - General: 2.0 Credits CO - General: 2.34 Credits CT - General: 2.0 Credits FL - General: 2.5 Credits IL - General: 1.75 Credits MO - Self Study: 2.34 Credits MS - General: 2.0 Credits NY - General: 2.0 Credits WA - General: 2.0 Credits WV - General: 2.34 Credits
Course Presenter(s)
Charles A. Christofilis, Esq.
Charles A. Christofilis, Esq. has served as Chief Compliance Officer (?CCO?), Senior Counsel and/or General Counsel for Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers for over a decade. Mr. Christofilis received a J.D. from Touro Law, an MBA in finance from the University of San Francisco a Bachelor?s degree in management from Pace University in New York and is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist. Mr. Christofilis is an attorney admitted to the bars of New York, New Jersey and California (CA In-House Counsel) and has Series 7, 63, 24, 79 and 27 designations from FINRA.
![](https://content.bitsontherun.com/thumbs/-360.jpg")
![](https://content.bitsontherun.com/thumbs/6CC1cNBd-360.jpg")
![](https://content.bitsontherun.com/thumbs/RBm51zyM-360.jpg")
![](https://content.bitsontherun.com/thumbs/7uD8C8kp-360.jpg")