Legal Pad

S.F. Office Space: Get It Cheap, While You Can

2009-11-20T17:53:00-08:00

San Francisco landlords are pretty desperate for tenants these days — but just a little less so than earlier this year.

And that means they’re still willing to throw in sweeteners on top of lower prices. We chatted with Frank Fudem, a San Francisco real estate broker with NAI BT Commercial who works with all kinds of companies, including law firms. Fudem says “good class A space” that would’ve cost in the high $50s per square foot two years ago can now be had for the low $30s. (That chart at left shows you, courtesy of NAI BT, the sad state of current occupancy rates.)

And, he says, landlords are willing to pay just about whatever it takes to cover improvements — such as laying down quality carpeting, installing glass walls and high-quality lighting. A small tenant can even hope to get a kitchen with a sink (just the plumbing for that is $10,000). All these count among expenses that Fudem says tenants have to pretty much cover themselves in a seller’s market.

“Even an office-intensive tenant like a law firm can probably get enough money from a landlord to fund what it needs,” Fudem said.

Of course, there are limits. Fudem says no one should expect free linen wall coverings or fancy oriental rugs. Let’s be serious, here.

Fudem says this is a window of opportunity that won’t stay open forever. Occupancy rates have been dropping, but less precipitously than in previous quarters. That, he says, could mean we’re approaching the bottom of this cycle. And, he warns, when San Francisco landlords start raising rates, the upswing is typically sharp.

— Petra Pasternak

Trademark Fight Draws a Line on Sand Hill Road

2009-11-20T17:19:00-08:00

A legal battle for the trademark rights to the very heart of Silicon Valley is under way. Sand Hill Advisors, the Palo Alto wealth management company, is suing Sand Hill Advisors, the commercial real estate company in Los Altos, for trademark infringement. Confusing!

For the three people who are still unaware, Sand Hill Road is the iconic stretch of pavement near which the sainted feet of venture capitalists tread daily to their places of work.

Sand Hill Advisors, the wealth management one, claims it’s been using the mark since 1995 and that its alleged namesake has been profiting off the use of the name since 1999. The complaint (.pdf) was filed by Shartsis Friese lawyers in San Francisco.

Well, Sand Hill Advisors may have picked the wrong Sand Hill Advisors to pick a fight with because Sand Hill Advisors, the commercial real estate one, is NOT GOING TO SETTLE.

Fight! Fight! Remember, folks, absolutely no wagering! Just click for the jump …

Albert Hill, the owner of the latter Sand Hill Advisors has a rather pointed message to the other Sand Hill written, like all the best legal communication, in a Yelp review.

Hill said he was “inspired us to fight this lawsuit to the bitter end” by a lawyer named Kurt Denke, who fought against Monster Cable, which sues anyone and everyone for trademark infringement.

With that fighting spirit, Sand Hill Advisors’ lawyers at K&L Gates filed a vigorous and lengthy motion to dismiss (.pdf) this week. Led by San Francisco IP partner Mike Bettinger, the lawyers argue that Sand Hill Advisors doesn’t even have an enforceable service mark, since the government rejected a trademark application because the name was descriptive of a place. They also say that the two companies are two very different lines of business. The Los Altos Sand Hill manages, leases and buys commercial real estate, while the other one invests people’s money.

And finally, they claim that their Sand Hill Advisors wasn’t even named after the darn road in Menlo Park: It was named after the founders, Bert Sandell and Albert Hill.

“The term “Sand Hill” in Defendant’s business name was derived by combining the first four letters of Mr. Sandell’s last name and Mr. Hill’s last name, “Sand” and “Hill.”

Here at Legal Pad we don’t like to pretend that we know who’s going to win court cases, but I’m going to go out on a limb on this one and predict: Sand Hill Advisors has it in the bag.

— Zusha Elinson

BART Cop's Murder Trial Goes to L.A.

2009-11-19T17:28:59-08:00

The murder trial for a former BART police officer is headed to Los Angeles County, an Alameda County judge reportedly ruled today.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Morris Jacobson had granted a change of venue motion a month ago, citing massive media attention to Johannes Mehserle’s murder trial, public anger and political turmoil, as well as concerns over courthouse security.

Los Angeles court officials reportedly said they likely wouldn’t be ready for the case to start for another six months or a year.

— Kate Moser

Lawyer-Daughter's Film On Controversial Lawyer-Father, At a Theater Near You

2009-11-19T17:25:55-08:00

Vanity Fair magazine supposedly once called William Kunstler “the most hated lawyer in America,” and even the New York lawyer’s daughters say they didn’t always understand the man.

Sarah and Emily Kunstler have made a film about their father called “William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe,” which will be screened starting tomorrow at the Opera Plaza Cinema in San Francisco, with appearances by the filmmakers later this weekend.

Sarah Kunstler, a criminal defense lawyer practicing in New York, said sometimes judges she meets have stories to tell her about her father. “He was a really charismatic person,” she said from her hotel in Los Angeles, where the film is also opening tomorrow.

The kind of work that gets you that kind of label, after the jump ...

During his career, Kunstler fought for civil rights in Mississippi, defended the “Chicago Seven” Vietnam War protesters and represented members of the American Indian Movement after Wounded Knee. “But the girls weren’t around for their father’s glory days,” the film’s press packet notes. “The father they knew publicly kissed the cheek of a Mafia client and condoned assassinations he viewed as political. He represented an Islamic fundamentalist charged with murdering a rabbi, a terrorist accused of bombing the World Trade Center, and a teenager charged with participating in a near-fatal gang rape.”

Of the film, Sarah Kunstler said, “It’s the story of a lawyer who was always thinking outside the box. It’s an opportunity for lawyers to see someone who’s looked at the courtroom as a theater.” In telling this personal story, Emily Kunstler added, the sisters were looking for a way to draw strength from history. Their production company, Off Center Media, makes documentaries on the criminal justice system.

The filmmaker sisters are answering questions about the film in person at Sunday’s 7:30 p.m. and 9:45 p.m. shows at Opera Plaza Cinema.

— Kate Moser

UC Regents, So Predictable, Confirm Fee Hikes

2009-11-19T14:54:57-08:00

UC Regents went ahead and voted today to increase student fees systemwide to deal with a $1.2 billion state funding gap.

We had the story of discontent among Berkeley’s future lawyers, and today ATL talks about general discontent among UCLA’s general population.

As we reported yesterday, part of the package includes price hikes for four UC law schools, with the biggest hit to Berkeley and Davis. Those campuses will see certain fees jump by about 22 percent for state residents in academic year 2010-11.

The fee increases are expected to generate $505 million, of which $175 million is to be earmarked for financial aid, according to the UC Office of the President.

UC President Mark Yudof urged students to help UC take the fight to Sacramento and Washington, D.C.

The vote follows a day after the Regents finance committee discussed the matter and voted to push the increases through while protestors gathered on campuses at UCLA and Berkeley. Surviving members of the Associated Press detail today's move, and the unrest around it, here.

— Petra Pasternak

You Can Probably Even Specialize in Pirate Litigation

2009-11-19T12:08:14-08:00

When pirates attack, can seamen sue?

The Maersk Alabama was attacked again yesterday off the coast of Somalia –- Somali pirates had first targeted the ship last Spring in a dramatic attack ended by U.S. Navy snipers. This latest, of course, generated mention of a lawsuit former crew members filed against the company in a Texas court over the spring attack, reportedly accusing Maersk of negligence in sending the crew into pirate territory with inadequate protection.

“Obviously she’s a hot target,” one of the former crew members told the Associated Press. “The bad guys were laying in wait for her.”

San Francisco maritime attorney Edward Bull III said his firm, Brodsky, Micklow, Bull & Weiss (which carries the best tagline ever: “Lawyers Worth Their Salt”), employed a similar legal theory on a case that resolved about 18 months ago.

Shiver me timbers, looks like more litigation work on the horizon, after the jump ...

In that case, a tuna boat captain was beaten by pirates who boarded his boat in Ecuador. His company had had cash delivered to the vessel, and the captain was worried about that as well as poor lighting and the area where he was forced to anchor the ship.

That case resolved in a satisfactory settlement, Bull said, though he said details were confidential.

As for the Maersk case, he said, “The legal theories are sound as long as the evidence is there.” On the other hand, he added, the company could argue that these were criminal acts beyond the company’s control, and that if the U.S. Navy can’t even stop pirate attacks, how can they?

In a statement the Navy issued about Wednesday’s pirate attack, which was thwarted by gun-toting security guards, the commander of the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command said it was “a great example of how merchant mariners can take pro-active action to prevent being attacked and why we recommend that ships follow industry best practices if they're in high-risk areas."

Those best practices dealing with security are a popular topic for maritime companies, Bull said.

And while pirate-related work isn’t piling up on maritime lawyers’ desks, it’s likely on the rise, Bull added, given that U.S.-flagged ships make more attractive targets to potential pirates. “I do think we’re going to see more of this.”

— Kate Moser

Reinhardt Rules With Eye on the Prop 8 Federal Case?

2009-11-18T17:45:35-08:00

Here’s another adventure, courtesy of Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt.

Awhile back, in an administrative order, Reinhardt found that a federal public defender was unconstitutionally denied health insurance benefits for his same-sex spouse. Today, the judge decreed that the FPD, Brad Levenson, receive back pay. But in an interesting little wrinkle, this latest missive (.pdf), was issued “for publication.”

According to Ninth Circuit rule 36-5: “An order may be specially designated for publication… and when so published may be used for any purpose for which an opinion may be used.” Clearly, Reinhardt is trying to lay some friendly precedential groundwork for the federal challenge to Prop 8, which is currently before Northern District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker. In his ruling, Reinhardt calls the federal Defense Of Marriage Act — which court administrators had cited to deny Levenson benefits — a violation of due process. Same-sex individuals deserve some form of heightened scrutiny, Reinhardt wrote.

Early X-Mas gift for the gay-marryin' types, after the jump ...

Moreover: “The denial of benefits here cannot survive even rational basis review, the least searching form of constitutional scrutiny.”

Reinhardt does offer a bit of covering language, writing that the state’s right to deny an individual the fundamental right of marriage to be “beyond the scope” of this opinion. But then, check out this bit.

“Discouraging gay marriage serves only to force gay couples to live in a ‘state of sin’ rather than in a lawfully-recognized ‘state of connubial bliss’ that encourages a long-enduring permanent relationship that, in turn, serves as the basis of a state-recognized family,” Reinhardt wrote. “Thus, rather than encouraging morality, the denial of fair and equal treatment to gay and lesbian couples encourages immorality, at least to the extent that it can be said to have any effect at all on decisions about whether and whom to marry.”

Ball’s in your court, Chief Judge Walker!

— Dan Levine

A Mickey Mouse Case (Some Headlines Write Themselves)

2009-11-18T16:42:16-08:00

Mickey Mouse filed a trademark lawsuit against Donald Duck in Florida District Court this week. Yes, the case was actually filed. No, we cannot say whether Mouse’s claims are frivolous.

The complaint (.pdf) is no Mickey Mouse job. It’s written by Mouse’s lawyer, Juan Abogado of Abogado & Abogado (remember your high school Spanish?), which makes its home at 1234 Candy Cane Lane in Miami. The allegations are nothing less than shocking: Mouse contends that 1) the action arises under Trademark Protection Act , 2) that Mouse owns a trademark on something and 3) that Duck is a duck.

Duck fired back in an answer, filed by Pluto the Dog, Esq., (.pdf), that Mouse is a quack and doesn’t own the trademark, although he concedes that he is a duck. Experts say the admission may doom him at trial.

We have no idea who filed the suit. There’s also a summons (.pdf) issued to Duck in the case, and either the pranksters at Abogado forged it for a laugh, or the court has a sense of humor. It’s signed: Goofy, Deputy Clerk United States District Court.

— Zusha Elinson

State Lawyers: Assuming You Only Win, You Still Lose

2009-11-18T16:22:51-08:00

No pressure, state lawyers. But if you could win all those lawsuits challenging California policies on furloughs, the prison population, redevelopment funding and social services cuts, the bean counters in Sacramento would be really grateful.

That’s because the Legislative Analyst’s Office, in a report issued today, says its projection of a staggering $21 billion budget deficit through 2011 assumes the state will prevail in every pending legal challenge tied to the state’s budget. If that assumption is wrong, unfavorable court decisions could put California several billion dollars more in the hole.

After the jump: Hey, we practice law for love, not a fair wage, right? Hello?

And here’s the kicker, state lawyers. Say you do a fantastic job and win every single case. You’re reward may be … no salary increase for another six years. The LAO says the state won’t be able to afford them if budget projections hold true.

“Such a long wage freeze,” the LAO notes, “could affect departmental operations negatively in various ways.”

You think?

The judicial branch can forget about seeing a quick return of its automatic annual inflation increase, too, the LAO says.

You can read the LAO’s cheery budget forecast in its entirety here.

— Cheryl Miller
Follow me on Twitter

'Who You Callin' Better Off?' (How to Start a Budget Slapfight)

2009-11-18T16:06:23-08:00

In times of tense budget talks (like now), be careful about alleging that another department is better off financially than your own. That’s the implicit message of a letter the San Francisco County Superior Court presiding judge sent to the city's mayor Tuesday.

In the two-pager, Presiding Judge James McBride made it clear that he did not think an Oct. 28 press release issued by Public Defender Jeff Adachi was fair to the court. In that release, Adachi had noted that the mayor’s office had approved filling 200 positions for the district attorney, police, sheriff, probation departments and the court while rejecting the public defender’s seven requests to fill positions in his department.

After the jump, a note on timing: Budget blah blah blah isn't water under the bridge, ever, anymore. Why just yesterday, the mayor's office asked the city's legal offices and other departments to make more cuts ...

McBride’s letter came as pressure mounts to cut budgets. Yesterday, the mayor’s budget director asked departments to submit proposals for cuts by Dec. 4, given a controller’s report (.pdf) out Monday that says the city faces a $53 million general fund deficit in the current year. The office sent out reduction targets (which a mayoral spokesman emphasized are merely suggestions) of $1.2 million for the district attorney, $904,000 for the public defender and $325,000 for the city attorney, based on each department’s share of the general fund.

McBride is taking issue now with Adachi citing 10 positions filled in the court in the past six months, a figure which includes the five judges the governor appointed to the bench in September. It’s misleading, the judge agued, since the vast majority of court costs are paid by the state (read the letter in toto (.pdf) to see just how gi-normously vast a majority he means). And the court’s been hit hard, too –- the fiscal crisis and judicial cuts have closed the trial courts one day a month, and the local court has instituted a hiring freeze. Open positions have reached an 8 percent vacancy rate, he said.

“Given the magnitude of the impact on the public, the San Francisco Bench, and our employees, the inaccuracies concerning the Court in Mr. Adachi’s news release are particularly troubling,” McBride wrote.

Adachi said he stands by his news release.

— Kate Moser