Skip to content

At the heart of the new Texas Anti-Abortion Law: A First Amendment Establishment Clause Assessment

[Advertisement*]

Putting aside the US Supreme Court’s recent inaction in staying its enforcement pendente lite, Texas Senate Bill 8, also known as the “six week abortion ban” ( https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/18/texas-heartbeat-bill-abortions-law/ ) has been much in the news lately as a Democrat vs. Republican or liberal vs. conservative battle (see, e.g., https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-speaker-pelosi-pledges-action-bill-response-texas-abortion-law-2021-09-02/ ).

However, at the heart of SB 8 [no pun intended, well, maybe just a little bit], this writer sees the motivation of the statute as one of religious belief instead. This appears in the “Legislative Findings” and “Definitions” portions of the bill. See, https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961 . For instance:

“Texas has compelling interests from the outset of a woman’s pregnancy in protecting … the life of the unborn child” (Sec. 171.202(3)); and

“‘Unborn child’ means a human fetus or embryo in any stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.” (Sec. 177.201(7)).

To this writer, the statute appears to codify the question of “when life begins” in favor of the Christian belief that life begins at conception.

Citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Wikipedia suggests: “The Catholic Church states that its opposition to abortion follows from a belief that human life begins at conception and that ‘human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception’.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion  .

The Catechism of the Catholic Church adds: “From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.” https://web.archive.org/web/20111008122958/https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM#-2C6 .

However, this clashes with the beliefs of Judaism, for instance:

“Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the fetus has an even more limited legal status, with one Talmudic authority (Yevamot 69b) asserting that prior to 40 days the fetus is “mere water.” Elsewhere, the Talmud indicates that the ancient rabbis regarded a fetus as part of its mother throughout the pregnancy, dependent fully on her for its life — a view that echoes the position that women should be free to make decisions concerning their own bodies.” https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/abortion-in-jewish-thought/ .

In this writer’s view, where the religious beliefs of one group are preferred over the religious beliefs of another group, the statute preferring one over another is unconstitutional in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The US Supreme Court said this in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612 (1971):

“The language of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment is, at best, opaque, particularly when compared with other portions of the Amendment. Its authors did not simply prohibit the establishment of a state church or a state religion, an area history shows they regarded as very important and fraught with great dangers. Instead, they commanded that there should be ‘no law respecting an establishment of religion.’ A law may be one ‘respecting’ the forbidden objective while falling short of its total realization. A law ‘respecting’ the proscribed result, that is, the establishment of religion, is not always easily identifiable as one violative of the Clause. A given law might not establish a state religion, but nevertheless be one ‘respecting’ that end in the sense of being a step that could lead to such establishment, and hence offend the First Amendment.”

The Lemon Court then announced a three part test for the constitutionality of a statute facing an establishment clause challenge: “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion [citation], finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion [citation]’.” Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra, 403 U.S. at pp. 612-613.

Here, the “six week abortion ban” appears to lack a secular legislative purpose. Instead it appears to advance a particular religious belief. Moreover, it even appears to foster excessive government entanglement because a court may act to award injunctive and monetary damages including “statutory damages in an amount of not less than $10,000 for each abortion that the defendant performed or induced.”Sec. 171.208(b)(2).  Cf., Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948) [a court cannot enforce private racially restrictive real estate covenants under the 14th amendment]; McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) [large and readily visible copies of the Ten Commandments in courthouses held unconstitutional].

The “six week abortion ban,” in this writer’s view, thus offends, among others, non-Christians who hold a different view of when life begins, and ultimately offends the First Amendment as being a step that could lead to “the establishment of religion” in the nation.

***

David I. Karp is a full time independent mediator of real estate and business disputes in Southern California who sometimes writes about subjects other than mediation. His website is at http://karpmediation.com

*This post is marked “Advertisement” so as to comply with the State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct if applicable.

Taking Control of the Situation

[Advertisement*]

The Coronavirus “delta variant” is surging according to current news reports. Many people are nervous and upset, even scared about it. Some reports say that even vaccinated people can be infected, resulting in getting sick or passing the virus to others, or both. Unvaccinated individuals, news sources say, are at the most risk.

Many are on edge about the unpredictability of the disease and their own safety. They feel as if they are not in control.

To “take control” is to “gain, assume, or exercise the ability or authority to manage, direct, or influence something.” https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/take+control+of .

Some people seek to take control of the delta situation by having been vaccinated, wearing a mask, practicing social distancing, and so forth, even though they may be tired of these practices after so long a time.

Some will seek to take control by getting vaccinated for the first time.

Some people feel as if they are not in control of their own lives if they are being pressured to vaccinate or wear a mask, and to “take control” they refuse either or both.

All of this brings me to the discussion of “taking control” of another situation:  litigation.

People are not necessarily “in control” of a lawsuit in which they are involved. There is much uncertainty and risk, not unlike the unpredictability or the fear of infection from the delta variant.

In litigation, people cannot control everything, not the opposing side or its attorney, not the judge or jury, not the outcome or cost.

Some ignore the risk, believing in their own infallibility (perhaps like those people who won’t vaccinate or wear masks?).

Some look for other ways to take control.

One way is mediation.

In mediation, a key concept is self-determination. Another is informed decision-making. People can choose whether or not to engage in the process, learn more about their predicament and possible solutions, and make appropriate decisions for themselves as to settlement, if at all, and its terms.

Mediation thus presents the opportunity to take control of the situation, find certainty of outcome and the management of risk and cost. It is, in other words, where people can “gain, assume, or exercise the ability or authority to manage, direct, or influence” something otherwise risky, costly, and uncertain. Ibid.

However, during the pandemic, and considering the spike in the delta variant transmissibilty, that mediation might take place online. That is how this writer is conducting mediations at the present time.

***

David I. Karp is a full time independent mediator of real estate and business disputes in Southern California. His website is at http://karpmediation.com

*This post is marked “Advertisement” so as to comply with the State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct if applicable.

Saving a Life, Saving the World: The Mitzvah of an Organ Transplant.

I am writing this on July 21, 2021, because of the importance of the day in my family.

This is a very personal essay, as it is about two of my relatives, both of whom live their lives with menschlichkeit.

Menschlichkeit is a Yiddish word that refers to all the qualities of being a ‘mensch’- a moral and honourable person of good character and who behaves with common decency….” See, https://www.herzlia.com/menschlichkeit/ .

These two young men (both in their late 20s) are third cousins of one another. One is my nephew, the other my second cousin’s son. Both, as boys, were scouts and went with me to Boy Scout Camp. Both, as college students, joined fraternities, like I did, and did well at their respective universities. Both have gone on to advanced learning (like me), one in business management/engineering the other in public policy/law.

Both of them are close to my heart.

Interestingly, both had grandfathers who were Masters of their Masonic Lodges. One is currently a Mason (as I am) and he is the Master of his lodge; the other has not (yet) asked to join.

One has had kidney problems requiring a transplant. The other will donate one of his kidneys today to him.

We measure people by the content of their character. The gift of life to another person, and the others’ grateful acceptance, constitute the measure of each of these two men.

For the donee, I am reminded of the phrase: “Choose life—so that you and your children after you will live” (Deut. 30:15,19). See, https://www.jtsa.edu/choose-life-and-torah

For the donor: “Whoever saves a single life is considered by scripture to have saved the whole world.” Talmud (Sanhedrin 37a), see https://rac.org/blog/save-one-life-save-entire-world-including-yourself

Both of them make me proud for what they go through together.

***

David I. Karp is a full time independent mediator of real estate and business disputes in Southern California who sometimes writes about subjects other than mediation. His website is at http://karpmediation.com

*This post is marked “Advertisement” so as to comply with the State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct if applicable.

The Ties that Bind: A Masonic Essay

[Advertisement*]

Lifelong friendships among fellow Masons are among the goals, privileges and rewards of belonging to a Masonic Lodge. As with any group that meets regularly and frequently, Masons get to know one another well.  These friendships are some of the ties that bind us.

There is no real hierarchy as all Masons treat one another without distinction, regardless of age, background, culture, religion, education, language or whatever.

Masons thus tend to be “on the level” with one another and like-minded when it comes to treating others with dignity, respect, morality, truth, justice and compassion. We have a common goal of philanthropy too. These too are ties that bind us.

At lunch yesterday (my first time inside a restaurant in 15 months), I think I was the oldest there (mid-60s). My children are grown and on their own. The youngest at the table was in his 20s with an infant at home. Across from me at the table was a Mason in his mid 40s who had just returned from a vacation with his wife and young children. Next to me sat a Mason somewhere in between in age. Each of us comes from a different culture and language background. It is no matter; we are friends. Maybe more: we are Brothers.

Our lunch took place after our Lodge’s business meeting. We call it a Stated Meeting. Joining us at lunch were several applicants to the lodge, I am happy to say. And, yes, they too come from different backgrounds, stages in life, business and professions, etc. This was an informal social event, which I so enjoy. We were all getting to know one another better and the applicants were also getting ready to embark on their journey in Freemasonry and in our Lodge, which brings me to another tie that binds us.

Freemasonry is not a religion; neither is it a secret society although we do have our secrets. It is a fraternity. Like all fraternities, our secrets are passed on to new members, like the applicants at the table yesterday, through our degree ceremonies and rituals.

Those ceremonies and rituals are very formal, historical, scripted and serious. They are put on for each applicant, and each applicant is given an opportunity thereafter to review what he has experienced so he can advance through the Degrees of Masonry, enjoy all the rewards of membership, and enrich his life.

These ceremonies create the strongest ties that bind, so much so that when we travel and visit other Lodges across the United States or around the world, we are certain that each Mason we meet has encountered substantially the same ceremonies, had the same experiences, and created the same ties to the Fraternity and to all Masons as we have.

These shared experiences create the instant affinity and friendship among all men who have joined the Masons, and such has been true for hundreds of years.

One of Freemasonry’s traditions is that we do not solicit members or ask men to join. Men must seek membership on their own initiative. Yet, Lodges do provide opportunities for learning about the Fraternity. My Lodge, Clarence F. Smith Daylight Lodge No. 866, is planning an Open House/Information Meeting, to which the public is invited, on September 18,2021, at 10AM at the Van Nuys Masonic Center. For Further information, see https://www.facebook.com/masonicopenhouse . Please feel free to visit and “like” the page if you are so inclined.

***

David I. Karp is a full time independent mediator of real estate and business disputes in Southern California who sometimes writes about subjects other than mediation. His website is at http://karpmediation.com

*This post is marked “Advertisement” so as to comply with the State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct if applicable.

On Enriching Interpersonal Communication

One in an Occasional Series of Masonic Essays

[Advertisement*]

Masons form lasting friendships which allow for improved exchanges of ideas.

Whether or not you liked his brand of politics, his message is both important and probably on point for the vast majority. In his interview on CNN aired on June 11, 2021, former President Barack Obama:

(1) expressed his dismay over the divisiveness in the country;

(2) observed that people with very different views – culturally and politically – largely do not speak or listen to one another, and most importantly;

(3) suggested that members of local communities find ways to get to know one another, despite their differences, so that their friendship and fellowship will bridge the gap and allow for better communication and understanding.

I found such a place in my Masonic Lodge, where men from very diverse backgrounds can and do meet “on the level” and form lasting friendships despite different points of view.

We do not discuss religion or politics within our Lodge. Yet our fellowship allows us, outside of the Lodge, to have informative, dispassionate exchanges on the topics of the day, even the more controversial ones.

We may not always agree with one another but we respect each person’s right to have and express his opinion without all the vitriol, bombast, or nastiness common on social media and on the street, where “the worst / Are full of passionate intensity” (Yeats, The Second Coming).

Our Lodge is very diverse by age, by cultural and religious background, by language and occupation, by political viewpoint, by personal interest, education and experience. Nevertheless, we meet, in and out of Lodge, with the goals of improving – not spoiling – our relationships and affability with one another.

For 30 years, I have been a Mason, and it has always been such a pleasure, and a relief, to belong to a Lodge and thus to have a place where friendship and fellowship can promote an open exchange of ideas while keeping our passions within due bounds.

One of Freemasonry’s traditions is that we do not solicit members or ask men to join. Men must seek membership on their own initiative. Yet, Lodges do provide opportunities for learning about the Fraternity. My Lodge, Clarence F. Smith Daylight Lodge No. 866, is planning an Open House/Information Meeting, to which the public is invited, on September 18,2021, at 10AM at the Van Nuys Masonic Center. For Further information, see https://www.facebook.com/masonicopenhouse . Please feel free to visit and “like” the page if you are so inclined.


David I. Karp is a full time independent mediator of real estate and business disputes in Southern California who sometimes writes about subjects other than mediation. His website is at http://karpmediation.com

*This post is marked “Advertisement” so as to comply with the State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct if applicable.

Helping with Risk Analysis

[Advertisement*]

I am a mediator not a judge. In mediation I always say that I will not decide who is right and who is wrong. That is not my role.  However, I say, based upon my prior knowledge and experience as a real estate litigator for 25 years and as a real estate mediator since then for 16 years, I may point out some potential issues, privately for one side or another, that may help them with their risk analysis  to prompt an adjustment in their expectations.

Why? Because unless people recognize and acknowledge that there may be some risk, they may proceed headlong into demands and counter-offers, with little or no compromise, which will not get them to the settlement of the matter.

So, sometimes I walk them through some factual and/or legal analysis with their counsel while we are together in a private caucus. But only with their permission first and usually well into our private discussions about how to get the case settled.

I do, however, caution that I am not giving advice on what to do. I will just point out something that needs to be addressed. Then their attorney, privately, can counsel them on what they think should be done in light of the discussion.

In this context, I urge the attorneys for both sides to share their mediation briefs in advance. They often have a handle on any threat to, or potential “Achilles heel” of, the other side’s case which, when revealed, will open the door for my private discussions in caucus about risk.

Usually, but not always, if people perceive and really grasp their risks, they will adjust their expectations accordingly. They may have to give up more on one side, or pay more on the other side, but the risk analysis usually helps the parties toward the essential compromise that leads to resolution.

However, this is only if they can acknowledge the risk and not ignore it due to their own perhaps myopic view of their side of the story.

Ultimately, it takes an open mind for this to work. As Frank Zappa reportedly said, “A mind is like a parachute; it doesn’t work if it is not open.”

If the litigant does have an open mind, and if he or she is receptive to the new or highlighted information, settlement may result.

***

David I. Karp is a full time independent mediator of real estate and business disputes in Southern California. His website is at http://karpmediation.com

*This post is marked “Advertisement” so as to comply with the State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct if applicable.

In a Quandary over In-Person Mediation

[Advertisement*]

A lawyer for whom I have mediated several real estate disputes in the past has, over the past year, asked me several times to conduct an in-person mediation during the pandemic, which is still not over as of the date of this post. I have put her off each time, insisting instead on zoom mediations which she would not abide.

Zoom mediations are still my preference and the only way to go for now, even if I may lose business (which I regret).

Frankly, my fear, even as I write this – being confined with strangers in a closed conference room and contracting or transmitting COVID-19 – has not lessened, even though now I am fully vaccinated and the rates of infection and death have declined locally.

Out of curiosity, I did some research online about protocols for in-person mediation. It hasn’t changed my risk analysis, hesitancy or (dis)comfort level. But thanks to the insight on some of these web pages, I was able to cobble together some ideas for if-and-when I would re-start in-person mediation practice.

One helpful website was https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/covid-19/hearings/impact-on-arbitration-mediation, which incidentally stated:

“FINRA DRS has decided to administratively postpone all in-person arbitration and mediation proceedings scheduled through July 2, 2021.”

That was good advice.

Another website, at https://www.jamsadr.com/blog/2020/process-planning-is-an-essential-prerequisite-to-successful-mediation-in-the-post-covid-19-era , said this:

“It is now possible to conduct in-person mediations in Boston, provided that the participants adhere to certain safety protocols, including the requirement that they wear face masks, that we limit the number of persons occupying each room to enable social distancing and that we replace buffet luncheons with individually boxed lunches. For the foreseeable future, mediations can only be conducted either by video conference or in compliance with social distancing and other safety protocols. The old way of doing business is no longer an option.”

So, what to do?

The answer is: I still don’t know.

However, in thinking about how and when, if at all, I could conduct in-person mediations, I prepared a document entitled COVID-19 Requirements and Declaration for In-Person Mediation, at least so I might have a framework once my comfort level is sufficient to let go of Zoom mediations only. It is a blend of ideas from my internet search and even from input from the Grand Lodge of Masons of California which is in the process of re-opening lodge rooms (I am a Mason). You can review this new COVID-19 document I prepared; it’s at the bottom of the “Forms” page of my website, at https://www.karpmediation.com/forms/ . (Thank you to the online resources I reviewed.)

For now, until I can come to grips with the prospect of in-person mediaton, and of course, as governmental restrictions lessen further, and until my family consents, I consider the possibility of in-person mediations still a just a hope for a return to normalcy.

As of this writing, I still prefer Zoom mediations, but we will see what the future brings.

***

David I. Karp is a full time independent mediator of real estate and business disputes in Southern California. His website is at http://karpmediation.com

*This post is marked “Advertisement” so as to comply with the State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct if applicable.

Social Justice for Passover During a Pandemic

[Advertisement*]

Passover (“Pesach”), the eight day observance recalling the Exodus from Egypt, is nearly upon us. It starts Saturday night, March 27, 2021.

Passover recalls the story of the Exodus and celebrates freedom from oppression.

Coincidentally, an exodus of migrants is taking place from the south at the southerly border of our country and I have been feeling heartbroken and helpless for those unaccompanied children, among others, seeking refuge here. And during a pandemic no less.

In an opinion piece published in the Dallas Morning News, July 13, 2018, entitled “As Jews, we must welcome immigrants as strangers in a strange land,” the author, Rabbi Andrew M. Paley, states:

“In the Torah we are commanded 36 times to remember that we were strangers in a strange land and that we are obligated, ‘When strangers sojourn with you in your land, you shall not do them wrong. The strangers who sojourn with you shall be to you as the natives among you, and you shall love them as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.’”

(https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/07/13/as-jews-we-must-welcome-immigrants-as-strangers-in-a-strange-land/ )

And so, feeling helpless, I have wondered how I could help from home as we wait out the pandemic.

Luckily, I received an email today from ReformJudaism.org pointing me to an article entitled “How You Can Support Unaccompanied Migrant Children” at https://reformjudaism.org/blog/how-you-can-support-unaccompanied-migrant-children .

Inasmuch as I believe that Social Justice is as much a part of Passover specifically as it is a part of Reform Judaism generally, I read the article and found a link to the “Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights” at https://www.theyoungcenter.org/ . (It is named for one of the first children they served, Young Zheng Sullivan.)

There I found a way to help, by making a donation, which I did, for their work in support of the unaccompanied and separated children seeking refuge here.

Now I feel as if I have fulfilled, at least for the moment, my obligation under Jewish Law for Social Justice, particularly for Pesach.

And, in the face of this pandemic, I also do not feel so helpless this Passover, to do what I believe is right (others may disagree).

***

David I. Karp is a full time independent mediator of real estate and business disputes in Southern California who sometimes writes about subjects other than mediation. His website is at http://karpmediation.com

*This post is marked “Advertisement” so as to comply with the State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct if applicable.

A Mediator Is Not a Substitute for One’s Own Attorney

[Advertisement*]

People search the internet for mediators when they do not have a mediator in mind or a referral. They do not know whom to call so they use a search engine.

This is not my primary source of business; usually I am retained by an attorney with whom I have previously worked or by someone who has been given my name.  My website is a reference point for someone who knows my name and wants a little more background.

But I do receive calls from unrepresented individuals who find me on the internet.  In my experience, however, this is because the people who are performing the search mostly are not themselves attorneys; and, in large part, they are looking for a substitute in lieu of an attorney.

I realize that these are generalizations. But when I get calls from people who found me on the internet, they are usually looking to cut out the cost of hiring an attorney. They misunderstand the mediator’s role. They are usually looking for someone to decide for them who is right and who is wrong, to give advice as to the best options for a solution to the dispute they are facing, to make the other side see it their way, to draft a settlement agreement for them, effectively to take the place of an attorney so they don’t have to hire one.

I am required to tell them that, although I am an attorney, I am not THEIR attorney. I am not representing them. I cannot advocate for them. I cannot give them legal advice. I can not tell them if they are getting a good deal or a bad deal. I do not prepare settlement agreements. All of these are functions of an attorney who represents them. I am not a substitute for their own attorney. I recommend that these unrepresented individuals seek the advice and counsel of their own attorney and then come to mediation. Or join in mediation without an attorney, knowing all of the foregoing.

Rule 2.4(b) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct requires this. It says:

“A lawyer serving as a third-party neutral shall inform unrepresented parties that the lawyer is not representing them. When the lawyer knows[ ] or reasonably should know[ ] that a party does not understand the lawyer’s role in the matter, the lawyer shall explain the difference between the lawyer’s role as a third-party neutral and a lawyer’s role as one who represents a client.”

So, they ask what I do as a mediator. I usually say something like this:

“I am a Neutral. I am not a judge. I do not decide who is right and who is wrong. I don’t represent either side of the dispute as an attorney, but I will manage the conversation between the two (or more) sides, so that, with sufficient information, each side can make its own decisions as to whether or not to settle and on what terms. I believe in self-determination and informed-decision-making by the parties themselves, usually with the guidance of their own counsel with whom I also interact as a go-between. If a settlement is reached, the attorney will draft the settlement agreement, not me. I have no power to force anyone’s agreement. It’s never up to me.”

Sometimes, with my explanation, the person who found me on the internet will go further to ask more about the process and how to engage me as their mediator. Usually I say that, when you hire counsel, usually the retained attorney finds and hires the mediator, but you are welcome to keep my name in mind and to suggest it at that time. Or you can proceed without an attorney with the above understanding.

Sometimes the latter happens. Mostly however, the person who found me on the internet thanks me for my time and ends the telephone call. That person is still looking to have a mediator who will substitute for their counsel.

As I see it, I am a mediator who augments an attorney’s participation. I am not a substitute for a person’s own lawyer. It is okay with me if that is not suitable for the caller.

***

David I. Karp is a full time independent mediator of real estate and business disputes in Southern California. His website is at http://karpmediation.com

*This post is marked “Advertisement” so as to comply with the State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct if applicable.

Code of Civil Procedure §664.6 Has Been Amended

[Advertisement*]

For my colleagues and friends – The following updated statutory language is provided for your information:

664.6.

(a) If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.

(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:

(1) The party.

(2) An attorney who represents the party.

(3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer’s behalf.

(c) Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (b) do not apply in a civil harassment action, an action brought pursuant to the Family Code, an action brought pursuant to the Probate Code, or a matter that is being adjudicated in a juvenile court or a dependency court.

(d) In addition to any available civil remedies, an attorney who signs a writing on behalf of a party pursuant to subdivision (b) without the party’s express authorization shall, absent good cause, be subject to professional discipline.

(Amended by Stats. 2020, Ch. 290, Sec. 1. (AB 2723) Effective January 1, 2021.)

Source: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=664.6.&lawCode=CCP

Kind regards,

David I. Karp


David I. Karp is a full time independent mediator of real estate and business disputes in Southern California. His website is at http://karpmediation.com

*This post is marked “Advertisement” so as to comply with the State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct if applicable.

%d bloggers like this: