Recent Posts in Legal Category

On Wednesday February 8, 2012, a evening event hosted by the Pasadena Bar Association, Family Law Section, proved to be extremely informative and beneficial for those in attendance.  At the meeting, the complexity of the " parental alienation" problem was addressed by three renowned child custody experts.  At the meeting, a three-panel presentation was given by Leslie M. Drozd, Ph.D., Kathryn Kuehnle, Ph.D., and Lisa Kiriakidis, certified family law specialist. 

The presentation began with Kathryn Kuehnle's overview of the research and misconceptions related to parental alienation.  Ms. Kuehnle introduced numerous concepts in her presentation, such as:

  1.         Gate keeping (restrictive and protective);

  2.         Estrangement and abuse;

  3.         The fact that parental alienation is not a "syndrome";

  4.         Her belief that pre‑existing relationships can matter with respect to the      success of reunification; and

  5.         Her belief that various parental behaviors and beliefs can cause parental alienation, such as the custodial parent's desire to replace the other parent with a stepparent, or where feelings of betrayal interfere with acting in the children's best interest to foster a positive relationship with the other parent.

Next, Leslie M. Drozd discussed the complexity of the problem and introduced the concept of "and", rather than "or".  Ms. Drozd explained that in many custodial evaluations, where there is alienation there is also abuse and/or estrangement.  Consequently, Ms. Drozd suggested that family law professionals should not view alienation in a vacuum but should look out for other problems in the family dynamic.    

Ms. Drozd and Ms. Kuehnle also emphasized that a lot of research still needs to be done in this area and that many of the existing studies are flawed.  Finally, Ms. Drozd and Ms. Kuehnle cautioned those in attendance not to jump to conclusions with respect to parental alienation and to think carefully before assuming this exists in a family dynamic.

The third panelist, Lisa Kiriakidis, gave a powerful personal account of her own child custody battle where parental alienation existed.  Mr. Kiriakidis gave a detailed account of how her family was impacted by the problem and at the conclusion of her summary those in attendance could have no doubt of the excruciating impact that parental alienation could have on a parent-child relationship.  Ms. Kiriakidis concluded by describing how she addressed the problem in her own custody battle and how she was able to save her son from an unhealthy situation by bringing her matter swiftly to the court's attention and obtaining an order to change custody, as well participating in reunification therapy.  Ms. Kiriakidis explained that reunification came swiftly in her case and that her son was appreciative of her efforts.  Ms. Drozd and Ms. Kuehnle added at the conclusion of Ms. Kiriakidis' account that they observed that the success of reunification is often related to the strength of the parents' relationship prior to the custody dispute.

At the end of the meeting, I was struck by the thought of how many children do not receive the benefit of having an parent like Ms. Kiriakidis or a competent family law attorney intervene on their behalf.  As a family law attorney, I am more resolved than ever to protect clients and their children where the other parent is engaging in parental alienation.  I also understand the importance of prompt judicial intervention and assertive lawyering when faced with parental alienation.  By the reaction of those in attendance, I know I was not the only one who appreciated this presentation.

If you're looking for a divorce attorney in Pasadena, remember that choosing adequate legal representation may be one of the most important decisions you'll make when ending your marriage. The right lawyer will be a strong advocate for your best interests, while the wrong lawyer could turn your divorce into a time consuming and often unnecessary courtroom battle.

For most people, their first instinct when searching for a divorce lawyer is to ask friends and family members for recommendations. While this can be a good starting point in your search, you should never rely on personal recommendations alone. Every case is unique and the best divorce lawyer for your sister or your old college roommate might not be the right attorney to handle your case.

When searching for a divorce lawyer in Pasadena, you want to choose a professional who specializes in divorce law instead of someone who has a general law practice.

If you have children, remember to ask if your divorce lawyer has experience in dealing with cases involving child custody and visitation. These can be complex issues and not all divorce lawyers are fully versed in family law. Remember that not all couples who are ending their marriages have children together.

If you and your spouse own a business together, have substantial investments, or have complicated retirement funds, you will want to select a divorce lawyer with above average skills in handling the division of assets. Attorneys who work in Pasadena divorce law firms often have access to specialists they can consult on these matters if needed.

The best divorce lawyers are those who succeed both in and out of court. An aggressive lawyer who passionately argues your case may sound ideal, but this isn't the best choice if your case would be better handled outside the courtroom. The best divorce lawyers know when divorce mediation is an appropriate alternative to litigation. Instead of being worried about appearing tough or aggressive, they work to find solutions that will help your case be settled as quickly as possible so you can move forward with the next chapter of your life.

If you're filing for divorce in Pasadena, chances are you've found yourself wishing there was one easy form to fill out and the whole mess would be done. In Texas, such a form could very well become a reality. But not everybody in the Lone Star State thinks an easy divorce form is a great idea.

Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued a letter to Texas State Bar president Bob Black, pushing the idea of simplified divorce forms which could be reviewed by the Supreme Court Advisory Committee. The forms have been in the works for nearly two years and are aimed at helping the millions of Texans who can't afford legal representation.

Proponents of the forms say that too many confused and unqualified Texans are forced to represent themselves in divorce court since there isn't enough legal aid to go around. Forms like the proposed ones in Texas are the norm in all but 12 other states, and champions of the cause say it's high time that Texas made getting a divorce easier. The legal system in Texas is notoriously clogged and backlogged and proponents also are hoping these forms will help alleviate system strain.

Opponents of the forms, on the other hand, argue that average people wouldn't know what they were filling out and something that was supposed to make things easier would complicate the divorce process even further. Judge Judy Warne told The Daily Caller that arrogance, not financial strain, is why people don't hire lawyers and the forms would only encourage folks to try to skate around the system.

"They don't know what to do with them," Warne said. "They think this is the magic form that's going to fix everything."

Other opponents say more manpower in free legal aid is the answer. Still, people in favor of the forms claim that family lawyers are against the forms because of greed and fear that the forms could potentially hurt their profits.

The state Supreme Court is expected to have a ruling on the forms as early as April.

Every once-in-a-while I come upon a case where the Family Court judge issues a Domestic Violence Restraining Order with an expiration date of less than the normal five-year period.  Pursuant to Family Code section 6345, the Family Court judge is well within his or her discretion to issue a restraining order for less than five years as the Family Code states

In the discretion of the Court, the personal conduct, stay away, and residence exclusion orders contained in a Court Order issued after notice and a hearing under this article may have a duration of not more than five years, subject to termination or modification by further order of the Court either on written stipulation filed by the Court or on the motion of a party.

On multiple occasions after a hearing, it has been my strong opinion that the Family Court judge got it wrong by limiting the duration of the Domestic Violence Restraining Order to one or two years, instead of issuing the order for a full five years.  In those cases, I felt that the Family Court judge did not consider or appreciate the severity of the domestic violence committed upon the victim, and did not understand the amount of protection that the victim required.  Unfortunately, there is not a lot an attorney can do under these circumstances due to the wide discretion of the court.

Fortunately, however, due to a recent Appellate Court decision, victims of domestic violence may get a second bite at the apple by obtaining a renewed restraining order with a longer duration.  In the case of Avalos v. Perez, the Court of Appeal held that the Trial Court erred by renewing a restraining order for two years instead of five years as required by the Family Code.  In Avalos v. Perez, the petitioner sought a restraining order against the defendant based on allegations that the defendant was repeatedly physically, sexually, and mentally abusing her and that he had threatened to harm her and her family.  After the trial, the Family Court judge issued a two‑year restraining order, and at the time the petitioner did not raise any objections to the limited duration of the order.

Two months before the restraining order was to expire, the petitioner filed for a renewal of the Domestic Violence Restraining Order in Family Court.  In support of the renewal, the petitioner claimed that the defendant sent a third-party to her workplace to "send her greetings."  At the hearing, the petitioner testified that she was afraid of the defendant because he apparently knew where she worked, and she believed that he may repeat the domestic violence.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the Trial Court expressed doubt that the petitioner was truly in fear, and renewed the restraining order for another two years rather than five years.

On appeal, the petitioner argued that the Trial Court erred by failing to renew the Domestic Violence Restraining Order for five years.  In rendering a decision, the Appellate Court looked at the plain meaning and language of Family Code section 6345(a), and noted that restraining orders may be renewed for five years and that the Code did not give the Family Court discretion to renew it for any period less than five years.  In other words, the Court of Appeals stated that a two‑year renewal of an existing restraining order is not authorized by the plain language of Family Code section 6345.

The Court of Appeal also held that the petitioner's failure to object to the duration of the Domestic Violence Restraining Order was not fatal to her appeal. 

Finally, the Court of Appeal also held that the petitioner's claim of continued fear was amply supported by the defendant's conduct prior to the termination of the existing order and the history of the defendant's abuse against her.      Therefore, we can conclude from this decision that a victim of domestic violence does not have to assert new domestic violence in order to obtain a renewal of the Domestic Violence Restraining Order.  Instead, the victim simply needs to prove by preponderance of the evidence, that there is continued fear based on the defendant's conduct.  Furthermore, the victim's fear does not have to be based entirely on new evidence of wrongdoing because the trial court can look to the extent of the domestic violence that was proven at the first hearing.   

In conclusion, victims of domestic violence who obtain Domestic Violence Restraining Orders with limited duration should not give up in seeking protection from the court.  If the victim continues to be afraid, he or she can not only obtain a renewal with a longer duration, but the evidence to support the renewed order is less burdensome.

 
Even the most amiable folks divorcing in Pasadena have to figure out who gets to keep the house. And in those not-so-amiable breakups, houses and apartments can become battlegrounds. Over the last few months, we've seen celebrities duke it out over beach houses and billionaires trying to cling to castles - but when it comes to property squabbles, nothing beats the saga of the Star Trek apartment.

Super Star Trek fan Tony Alleyne has been profiled more than a few times for having the ultimate Trekkie apartment. After his wife left him in 1994, Alleyene spent a staggering $150,000 to transform his one-bedroom apartment in Leicester, U.K., into an exact replica of the fictional starship the U.S.S. Voyager from the Star Trek: Voyager television series.

"I have always considered that of all the Starfleet ships, Voyager is, in terms of interior, the luxury liner of the galaxy," Alleyne said in an interview in 2009.

No detail of the ship was skipped and Alleyne calls the remodel his "life's work." The project took ten years to complete and has been blogged about by fans of the franchise since its completion. A high-tech bathroom, voice-activated blue lights and his own captain's chair are just a few of the one-of-a-kind features.

So imagine Alleyene's disappointment when he learned that his ex-wife would be taking the apartment from him. How did an ex of nearly twenty years stake claim on her estranged husband's ultimate sci-fi man cave? Turns out Alleyene's ex-wife is the actual owner of the apartment and has been paying the mortgage since the pair broke up in 1994. She is just now seeking an official divorce and hopes to sell the apartment as a "conventional property." She plans to dismantle all of the Star Trek fixings and remodel the apartment before she puts it on the market.

This coming month members of the Pasadena Bar Association will receive their annual membership renewal forms sent by our executive director.  Members of our Association should look carefully at the application and insert this year as the materials will include information on how to take part of a new feature recently added to the Pasadena Bar Association web site. 

The new feature allows members to post their photographs onto the Pasadena Bar Association website along with a direct link to their personal web pages.  To ensure that all of our members have an equal opportunity to display their names and photographs at the top of the site, the feature automatically rotates the names on an hourly basis.  Consequently, no attorney listed on the website will have an advantage due to the spelling of his or her name. 

Members who are interested in signing up for the feature should check the designated box on the application and send their checks to the Pasadena Bar Association.  Questions concerning this new feature should be addressed to our executive director, Michele Paniagua, at info@ pasadenabar.org.  To view the new attorney referral feature go to www.pasadenabar.org, click on the family law attorneys section of the referral page and you will see samples of attorneys with photographs and direct links to their websites.

The Pasadena Bar Association believes that this feature will provide a valuable benefit to participating members.  For those of us who desire referrals from other attorneys, the photographs will allow attorneys within the community to look to the website and place a face to the names of people they may have met at our various events.  Similarly, members of the public will also have the opportunity of putting a face to the name before selecting an attorney to call. 

Same-sex couples seeking divorce advice in Pasadena are more often than not riddled with the concerns that the laws won't give them the same protection that divorcing straight couples are entitled to. Many states have outdated or just plain discriminatory laws that prevent same-sex couples from receiving equal treatment in divorce court. Now Washington D.C. has set its sights on updating divorce laws for gay and lesbian couples.

D.C. councilman Phil Mendelson was prompted to propose legalization after hearing that same-sex couples who were married in the district were being denied divorces after moving to jurisdictions that don't recognize same-sex marriages. D.C. started allowing sex-same marriages in 2010, but since only a handful of states recognize gay marriage, getting a divorce can be even more complicated.

"I received a number of reports from couples or attorneys about this impossible situation," Mendelson told CNN. His bill lifts the six-month waiting period during which someone seeking a divorce must reside in the district provided they were married in D.C. to begin with.

The proposed bill so far has received positive response from gay and lesbian activists and human rights groups.

"This bill fills a gap in the law created by our being ahead of the historical curve. None of us celebrates the dissolution of a marriage, but equality under the law must extend to every contingency. The lack of a clear legal mechanism for divorce can make an unhappy situation much worse for all involved," said Rick Rosendall of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington.

Experts say the measure is likely to pass, as 7 of the 13 members co-sponsored the bill. Before the bill can become a law in the city of D.C., approval by the mayor or an override is needed, as is a 30-day congressional review period.

On Thursday, January 19, 2012, at 5:30 pm, the law firm of Christie, Parker, and Hale, will host an inauguration party for the incoming president of the Pasadena Bar Association - Sajan Kashyap.  The inaugural party will be at the new offices of Christie, Parker, and Hale, located at 655 N. Central Ave, Ste. 2300, Glendale, CA 91203-1445. Although the law firm of Christie, Parker, and Hale moved to Glendale from Pasadena in December 2011, it will continue to be proud leaders within the Pasadena Bar Association.

In years past, the inauguration, hosted by Christie, Parker, and Hale has proven to be well attended and a fun event to kick off the New Year.  The Pasadena Bar Association welcomes all members and attorneys interested in joining the association to join us in welcoming our new president and learning about the Association's 2012 schedule of events and goals.

Look at your current relationship and note whether or not any or all of the following apply:

• Is possessive or jealous toward you.
• Bossy or demanding in attempts to control you.
• May have a quick temper and/or is violent.
• Attempts to isolate you by cutting you off from friends, family, and other social contacts.
• Abuses alcohol and/or drugs.
• You feel pressure sexually and/or demands sexual activities you're not comfortable with.
• Tells you you're responsible when he mistreats you.
• History of bad relationships.
• Friends and family are concerned for your health and safety.
• You worry about your partner's reactions to what you say and do.
• Partner makes "jokes" that embarrass, humiliate, or shame you privately or around family and friends.
• Partner has angry outbursts when they feel hurt, shame, fear, or loss of control.
• Partner witnessed abusive parental relationship and/or was abused as a child.
• In order to cope with the pain of the relationship, you and/or your partner have developed or progressed in alcohol or drug dependence.
• You repeatedly leave and return to relationship against the advice of your loved ones.
• You are not able to leave the relationship even though you know it is in your best interests to do so.

If you are thinking about leaving a destructive disturbing or otherwise unworkable relationship know you'll most likely always struggle with claiming a sense of self while with this person. It will zap you of your energy and for all your effort you'll still feel a sense of loss and emptiness. If your partner agrees to couples therapy and both of you are sincerely interested in making positive changes then go for it.

Just be prepared that it might not work and in the end you'll need to get out so you can begin living a normal life.

Remember to expect respect. It takes practice, and trust in yourself, to know when something someone says to you, or wants you to do, isn't right. Stand up for yourself and realize you have great value. Don't let other people push you around, embarrass, or in some other way make you feel inferior. People who are cruel to you are not worth having in your life.

Above all, don't be so dependent on another person, that the value you place on yourself is determined by the attention they pay to you. You are a separate person!

Family attorneys in Pasadena often warn clients of the perils of missing spousal or child support payments. An expensive arrangement can become financially devastating if a spouse shrugs off paying their ex what they owe as part of their divorce settlement. Minneapolis-based CEO Andrew Redleaf is one millionaire who is learning this lesson the hard way.

Back in February 2008, Redleaf was ordered to pay his ex-wife, Elizabeth, $140.7 million in cash payments over a five-year period. Elizabeth, in exchange for the settlement, agreed to waive any interest in Andrew's business. Andrew Redleaf runs Whitebox Advisors, a hedge fund that manages $2.5 billion in assets. Initially, Elizabeth was to receive two lump-sum payments of $20.8 million before the divorce was granted, followed by another one-lump sum payment of $30 million in 2013 while the rest was to be paid off in monthly installments of $1.5 million. Redleaf initially stuck to the agreement, making the two upfront payments as well as monthly payments of $1.5 million through January 2009.

But according to court documents, he skipped more than a year's worth of payments after claiming his income had declined. After Elizabeth won a judgement worth $21 million, which he paid, Andrew then tried to renegotiate the settlement - again stating that his financial situation had changed. The courts also denied this request. After missing three more months of payments, he requested a 4 percent rate on what he owed. But last week, the court fired back and ruled that Andrew Redleaf must pay an additional 10 percent interest on the judgments as mandated by a Minnesota statute on judgements over $50,000.

Redleaf and his attorney then took the case to the state of Court of Appeals, arguing that the 10 percent interest rate was beyond the market rate. Judge Thomas Kalitowski of the Court of Appeals disagreed. His ruling did not address whether Redleaf could make the payments.

"The court here only had to determine that (Andrew Redleaf) was liable to (Elizabeth) for a sum of money that he had not paid," the judge said in the ruling.

Redleaf's attorney disagreed with the ruling and told reporters that the interest rate should be reconsidered.

"In family court, there should be discretion to the trial judge to decide the interest rate," the attorney said.

The Pasadena Bar Association announces the dates for its 2012 Speech Scholarship contest.   The preliminary rounds will be held at La Salle High School, on April 21, 2012.   The final round will be held on Law Day, May 10, 2012, at noon, at the Pasadena Civic Auditorium.  

The top two finalists will speak in front of approximately 150 judges and lawyers.  The first place winner will receive a $5,000 scholarship.   The second place winner will receive a $2,000 scholarship.   And the third, fourth and fifth place winners will each receive a $100 scholarship.   Trophies and ribbons will also be presented to those contestants who place first through tenth.  

The choice of topics for the speeches will be announced within the next couple of weeks.  This tournament is an open tournament, meaning that the Pasadena Bar Association will allow students from any local high school to participate.   The Association expects a large number of contestants based on the success of last year's tournament.   In addition, the Association intends on promoting the event heavily during the next three months, including going to local high schools to speak to students who may have an interest in participating.

The Pasadena Bar Association Speech Scholarship Tournament is unique due to the fact that contestants will speak in front of a group of lawyers at every round (in other competitions competitors usually speak to only one judge, until the final round).  Members of our Association are really looking forward to participating in the preliminary rounds, as it gives them a sense of satisfaction that they are giving back to the community in a meaningful way that is unique to attorneys.   The Association invites any of its members who are interested in participating in judging the preliminary rounds to contact Donald Schweitzer at don@pasadenalawoffice.com.  

Pasadena, CA (PRWEB) December 8, 2011 - The presiding judge of the family court in Los Angeles, Judge Marjorie Steinberg, will be the Pasadena Bar Association's Family Law section's last guest speaker for the year.

Judge Steinberg will be speaking at 12pm at the Noor Restaurant, located at 260 East Colorado Blvd, Suite A209, Pasadena, CA 91101, on December 14, 2011.  Judge Steinberg recently announced her retirement effective at the end of 2011.

She is expected to discuss the new developments in family law and the courts.  Part of Judge Steinberg's presentation will address the ongoing challenges related to the court's budget cuts.  She will also discuss the implementation of new law related to Family Code § 217.  In addition, it is expected that Judge Steinberg will discuss the new judicial assignments at the Los Angeles Superior Court for the year 2012.

According to Donald P. Schweitzer, Program Chair of the Pasadena Bar Association, "We really appreciate that Judge Steinberg will be our guest speaker during her last month on the bench.  Judge Steinberg has been generous to our association during the past year, as she has spoken at three prior events."

Judge Steinberg has been a member of the California State Bar since December 1975.  She has served on the bench since 2001, spending the last several years as the supervising judge in family law where she oversees 45 family law judges and commissioners who preside over family law cases.  Judge Steinberg is considered by many to have been on the front line of one of Los Angeles' toughest judicial areas.  A supporter of the family court system, Judge Steinberg has encouraged the collaborative dissolution system in the Los Angeles courts as a means of diffusing the tension in divorce cases.

The Pasadena Bar Association believes Judge Steinberg's presentation to be very informative toward the practice of family law in 2012 and strongly encourages all family law attorneys practicing in Pasadena to attend this event, to demonstrate their gratitude to Judge Steinberg for her years of service.

For those planning to attend should RSVP with Linda Dugan by e-mail at om@duganlittle.com and more information on the Pasadena Bar Association can be found at http://www.pasadenabar.org/

Divorce attorneys in Pasadena have seen just about every lawsuit revolving around weddings and relationships that you can possibly imagine. And yet there is always room for one more bizarre lawsuit to make us scratch our collective heads. This month, the lawsuit that has us saying "hmm" involves a groom who is suing his wedding photographer six years after the pictures were taken and even though the couple is now divorced. And the case only gets weirder from there.

According to The New York Times, Todd J. Remis of Manhattan is suing the wedding photographer who captured the intimate moments of Remis' nuptials to Milena Grzibovska in 2003. Remis is demanding that he be repaid the $4,100 cost of the photography. He also is requesting $48,000 to re-stage his wedding, including travel costs to fly his guests to New York to attend the fake celebration, which will be re-shot by another photographer. Making wedding magic happen twice might be a tough feat, however - especially considering his ex-wife is believed to be currently living in her native Latvia.

Dan Fried, an owner of H&H Photographers, the company being sued by Remis, has called the demands "an abuse of the legal system." And Justice Doris Ling-Cohan of the State Supreme Court in Manhattan dismissed the majority of the grounds for the lawsuit, like the "infliction of emotional distress." However, she has allowed the case to proceed in order to determine whether there was a breach of contract between H&H and Remis.

"This is a case in which it appears that the 'misty watercolor memories' and the 'scattered pictures of the smiles ... left behind' at the wedding were more important than the real thing," the judge wrote, quoting Barbra Streisand's hit "The Way We Were." "Although the marriage did not last, plaintiff's fury over the quality of the photographs and video continued on."

She is expected to rule on the case in the upcoming months.

Financial concerns are usually near the top of the list for folks seeking divorce advice in Pasadena especially when couples have embarked on lucrative business ventures together. Sometimes financial situations get really complicated and carry on long after the ink is dry on divorce papers.

Take the tangled finances of 77-year-old singer Frankie Valli and his ex-wife Randy Valli, for instance. The 1960s falsetto singing sensation Frankie Valli saw a career resurgence in 2005 when Jersey Boys, a musical based on his career with his band The Four Seasons, was a hit on Broadway. The show won six Tonys, was a worldwide smash and brought in millions for Valli.

The profits from that show are at the center of Frankie latest battle with Randy. According to TMZ, the 51-year-old Randy already receives $30,000 a month from Frankie (as well as several hundred dollars in public assistance). Official court documents claim that Randy Valli currently nets $25,000 in Jersey Boy royalties, $5,000 in spousal support and $810 a month in public assistance for taking care of their minor children. Her new lawsuit is seeking additional royalties as well as financial coverage of legal fees. The legal documents state that Frankie makes more than $515,000 a month, with the majority of the money coming from Jersey Boys. Jersey Boys has a sold-out touring production, a permanent home in Las Vegas and a production in London - all of which bring in millions of dollars to Valli and the other producers every year. The musical, which is headed for the big screen, recently became Broadway's 25th-longest-running musical.

Valli married Randy Clohessy on July 7th, 1984; the couple filed for divorce last year. The pair have three children together. Valli was married twice before he met Clohessy.

          The Pasadena Bar Association website has launched its new attorney referral feature which all of our members are encouraged to check out.   This new feature allows members to post their photographs onto the PBA website along with a direct link to their personal webpages.   To ensure that all of our members have an equal opportunity to display their names and photographs at the top of the site, the feature automatically rotates the names of our attorneys on a regular and consistent basis.

           The Attorney Referral feature has intentionally been placed on the top portion of the PBA homepage so that it is visible and easy to locate for the public.   The primary motive for creating this feature was to assist our members to market their practices to the local community.   This feature will allow members to participate in internet marketing at a very reasonable cost.   In addition, this feature is expected to give our members' websites a search engine boost.  

        A one‑time sign-up fee of only $250.00 per attorney and $500.00 per law firm (law firms with more than one attorney) will be charged.   Every subsequent year, participating members will be charged $50.00 for maintenance and upgrades to  the site.   Members who are interested in signing up for this feature should email our executive director, Ms. Michelle Paniagua, at info@pasadenabar.org.   We believe this fee is very reasonable in light of the costs involved for attorneys to market their law practices on commercial attorney referral sites, many of which cost hundreds of dollars per month on an ongoing basis.

        In this day and age, as traditional attorney referral services are rapidly phasing out, most consumers search the internet for attorneys, when in need of one.  Generally speaking, most consumers prefer local attorneys, and our website is a natural place where people will look for an attorney.

       The Pasadena Bar Association intends on promoting the attorney referral feature to the general public.   Many people who are in need of an attorney referral are at a loss of where to search.   We want to make it easy for people to know that our feature is available.   To view the new attorney referral feature go to http:\\www.pasadenabar.org\.   Click onto the Family Law attorney's section feature to see multiple samples of attorneys with photographs and direct links to their websites.

            Submitted by Donald Schweitzer, PBA Vice President and Program Chair.

           On January 5, 2012, Donald P. Schweitzer will be a guest speaker for the San Gabriel Valley Family Law Attorneys Study Group, a group of highly experienced Family Law attorneys who meet once per month to acquire Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credits.   Donald was sought out by the group's organizers and asked to prepare and deliver a lengthy presentation that will be entitled, "2011 Family Law Review."

            The San Gabriel Valley Study Group is hosted by the accounting firm, White, Zuckerman, Warsavsky, Luna and Hunt and consists of approximately forty (40) Family Law attorneys.   The study group was formed several years ago by Certified Family Law Specialists who recognized the importance of being cognizant of trends, changes and shifts in the Family Law pendulum.   Consequently, Donald will provide a detailed summary of important Appellate Court decisions published in 2011, as well as a summary of new statutory law that will go into effect on January 1, 2012.

            When asked about presenting for this group, Donald stated, "ever since I began practicing Family Law I have made it a point to keep up with the constant evolution of the law.   It has been very easy for me since I find Family Law very interesting.   I am honored that the study group asked me to give this presentation, as it suggests that my peers respect my knowledge of Family Law."  Donald has prior experience teaching, as he has personally trained several associate attorneys new to the field of Family Law.