Four Engelman Berger Attorneys Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019

Four of Engelman Berger’s attorneys have been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019, considered by many to be the definitive guide to legal excellence. EB attorneys were chosen in the areas of Bankruptcy, Litigation, Public Finance, and Real Estate Law. Steve Berger was selected for the 15th year in a row, Brigitte Finley Green was selected for the 10th year in a row, Tami Lewis was selected for the 5th year in a row, and Kurt Peterson was selected for the 2nd year in a row.

Steven N. Berger (since 2003)

         Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law

         Litigation – Bankruptcy

Brigitte Finley Green (since 2007)

         Public Finance Law

Tamalyn E. Lewis (since 2015)

         Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Recognition Law

Kurt A. Peterson (since 2018)

         Real Estate Law

Best Lawyers® is the oldest and most respected peer review publication in the legal profession. Best Lawyers® selects its honored attorneys entirely by peer review. Their methodology is designed to gather as accurate of a consensus opinion of the leading attorneys in the profession. Selections are made after compiling data from extensive peer review surveys in which tens of thousands of leading lawyers confidentially review and evaluate their professional peers. Opinions are based on the lawyers’ professional abilities which are compared to others in the same geographical location and legal practice area.

Congratulations Steve, Brigitte, Tami, and Kurt!

How to Play in Arizona’s Fintech Sandbox – Part III

The Arizona legislature recently signed into law the nation’s first fintech regulatory sandbox, which started accepting applications on August 3, 2018. Participants in the sandbox will enjoy a reprieve from many of the licensing and regulatory burdens of companies in the financial sector, so the program offers a great incentive for financial technology (aka, “fintech”) companies to settle and operate in Arizona. This is the third in a five part series on how to apply for and participate in the sandbox. If you are new to the series, go back and read parts one and two, which discuss the history of sandbox programs and the benefits to participants of the Arizona sandbox. This part three will examine the eligibility requirements. Part four will explain the application process, and part five will address the rules once you are in the sandbox. The official website for the fintech sandbox was recently launched and can be viewed HERE, and the full text of the law can be viewed HERE.

Who Can Apply?

The statute is very inclusive right from the start: “Any person may apply to enter the regulatory sandbox to test an innovation.” (Emphasis added). This includes not only startups or other new entrants to the Arizona market, but also established companies already licensed in the state. In fact, I expect that a sizable percentage of sandbox participants will be legacy banking institutions, as they will benefit equally from the opportunity to use Arizona as a testing ground for new products and services.

A Place for Innovators

The sandbox is limited to the testing of financial products or services—meaning consumer lending, motor vehicle sales financing, insurance, or investment management—that are deemed “innovative,” which is defined to mean:

the use or incorporation of new or emerging technology or the reimagination of uses for existing technology to address a problem, provide a benefit or otherwise offer a product, service, business model or delivery mechanism that is not known by the attorney general to have a comparable widespread offering in this state.

We will have to wait and see how broadly the attorney general applies the requirement that the product or service be innovative. However, every formal statement by the attorney general’s office about the sandbox leads me to believe that it will be a very loose and inclusive assessment.

Must be in Arizona.

To participate in the sandbox, the person will also need to be subject to the (1) jurisdictional authority and (2) oversight of the attorney general. Specifically, under A.R.S. § 41-5603(C), the applicant must demonstrate that it both:

  1. Is an entity or individual that is subject to the jurisdiction of the attorney general through incorporation, residency, presence agreement, or otherwise.
  2. Has established a location, whether physical or virtual, that is adequately accessible to the attorney general, from which testing will be developed and performed and where all required records, documents and data will be maintained. 

Let’s break this down a bit.

Subject to Jurisdiction in Arizona

Under the text of the statute, the jurisdictional requirement can be satisfied a few different ways. However, based on the following language in the recently released sandbox application, it appears that admitted applicants will uniformly be required to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement by executing a written acknowledgment:

If accepted into the Sandbox, Applicant agrees to be bound by the requirements of Chapter 55 of Title 41 of the Arizona Revised Statutes and understands that Applicant and Active Managers will be required to acknowledge they are subject to the jurisdiction of the Arizona courts with respect to any action arising out of or relating to Applicant’s Testing.

This language relates to the “presence agreement” option listed in A.R.S. § 41-5603(C)(1). The attorney general has not publicly released the presence agreement that will be used, so it is worth taking a quick look at the three other statutory prongs available to satisfy jurisdiction: “incorporation,” “residency,” “or otherwise.”

First, incorporation simply means that the company is formed under the laws of Arizona. It could be argued that use of the term “incorporation” was meant to refer only to “corporations” formed under Title 10 and not limited liability companies under Title 29 (LLC’s are “organized” or “formed” rather than “incorporated”). However, given the otherwise inclusive language of the sandbox bill, which is open to any “person,” I don’t think the legislature intended to limit jurisdictional eligibility under the incorporation prong to Title 10 corporations, especially given that LLC’s organized in Arizona are generally subject to Arizona’s jurisdiction in other circumstances.

“Residency” generally means exactly what you would expect: if you are an individual that lives in Arizona full time, or if you are a company incorporated or organized in Arizona or whose principal place of business is in Arizona, then residency should be clearly satisfied. However, if you split time between Arizona and another state, or if you simply have some, but not all, business operations in Arizona, then determining your state of residence may involve a more complex legal analysis.

The final provision, “or otherwise,” is simply a catch-all provision that recognizes the many other ways people can become subject to the jurisdiction of a state. For example, if you are a foreign business, but you obtained a license to conduct certain business in Arizona, then by doing so you may have agreed to be subject to Arizona jurisdiction. Similarly, if you conduct significant ongoing business in Arizona, or if you have a significant presence in Arizona in the form of employees and/or offices, you may also be generally subject to jurisdiction in Arizona.

Location Must be Available to the Attorney General.

The second element requires the applicant to designate a specific place to develop and perform testing and to maintain all records, documents and data. This element is interesting in that it allows the applicant to designate a “physical or virtual” place – a savvy drafting decision by the legislature because it recognizes that many of these companies are going to be operating exclusively online.

It is not clear whether this element requires companies to give the attorney general access to original records and/or the exact same development and testing platform used by the company, or whether the company can simply create a copy for the attorney general’s use. In either case, it must be “adequately accessible” to the attorney general, and although that phrase is not specifically defined, I would expect that it will involve some measure of unfettered administrative access. I am including this component in our discussion of eligibility, but in actuality it is a requirement that can likely be satisfied after admission to the sandbox by coordinating with the attorney general to provide access.

Criminal History May be a Barrier

The text of the fintech sandbox statute does not prohibit the admission of applicants with a criminal history, but it does require prior criminal convictions of the applicant or the applicant’s key personnel to be disclosed in the application. This suggests that criminal history will have some impact on the attorney general’s evaluation, but exactly how much is unknown. My guess is that applicants who have been convicted of financial or other white collar crimes may have difficulty getting admitted to the sandbox, particularly if that crime relates to the same financial sector the applicant’s fintech innovation would serve.

The attorney general will also evaluate applications in consultation with any agencies the innovation are or would be subject to, so if you already have a history of censures, investigations, or other negative agency actions, then your application may get rejected.

Whatever your background, applications should be completed thoroughly and carefully, which I will explore further in part four of this series.

About the Author: Michael Rolland is a member of the civil litigation and commercial transactions practice groups with the law firm of Engelman Berger, P.C. Michael has a special interest in the intersection of technology and the law, and writes on tech law issues.

 

 

Disclaimer: This blog is not legal advice and is only for general, non-specific informational purposes. It is not intended to cover all the issues related to the topic discussed. If you have a legal matter, the specific facts that apply to you may require legal knowledge not addressed by this blog. If you need legal advice, consult with a lawyer.

How to Play in Arizona’s Fintech Sandbox – Part II

The Arizona legislature recently signed into law the nation’s first fintech regulatory sandbox, which started accepting applications on August 3, 2018. Participants in the sandbox will enjoy a reprieve from many of the licensing and regulatory burdens of companies in the financial sector, so the program offers a great incentive for financial technology (aka, “fintech”) companies to settle and operate in Arizona. This is the second in a five part series on how to apply and participate in the sandbox. If you are new to the series, go back and read part one, which gave a little background on sandbox programs implemented worldwide and efforts to create similar programs in the United States. This part two will discuss the benefits of participating in the Arizona sandbox. Part three will examine the eligibility requirements. Part four will explain the application process, and part five will address the rules once you are in the sandbox. The official website for the fintech sandbox was recently launched and can be viewed HERE, and the full text of the law can be viewed HERE.

What’s the Benefit?

The stated purpose of the sandbox is “to enable a person to obtain limited access to the market in this state to test innovative financial products or services without obtaining a license or other authorization that otherwise might be required.” A.R.S. § 41-5602. “Financial product or service” is defined to mean products or services in consumer lending, motor vehicle sales financing, insurance, or investment management, which are heavily regulated industries that generally require a state license to operate. A.R.S. § 41-5601(3). For example, Arizona consumer lenders must be licensed and pay annual licensing fees starting at $1,000. Money transmitters are similarly subject to licensing requirements, including annual fees starting at $1,500, and are only eligible for a license if they have a net worth exceeding $100,000 and satisfy a number of other requirements. The Arizona sandbox will allow fintech companies who would normally be subject to such licensure requirements to operate in Arizona without a license.

Less Regulation, Cheaper Costs, Fewer Penalties.

As unlicensed companies, sandbox participants are “not subject to state laws that regulate a financial product or service” except for those specifically identified in the sandbox statute. A.R.S. § 41-5605(F). For example, while consumer lenders will still need to comply with restrictions on finance charges and certain other loan terms, they will not need to provide annual reports and will not be subject to the normal penalty of $300/per violation of the state consumer disclosure requirements. Similarly, vehicle sales financiers who willfully fail to comply with any provision of A.R.S. § 44-281 et seq. would normally be penalized by losing the finance charge due under the loan, but participants in the sandbox will not be subject to that.

Money transmitters in the sandbox will not need to comply with any of the regulations in A.R.S. § 6-1201 et seq. Investment management companies will be exempt from the numerous state requirements set forth in A.R.S. § 44-3101 except for prohibitions on fraudulent practices and “dishonest and unethical practices,” rules governing custody of client funds and disclosure of information to clients, and requirements to maintain books and records in compliance with federal law. Notably, they will be exempt from administrative penalties and the other enforcement provisions in the statute.

The Growing Regulatory Mess: For Example – Money Transmitters.

The costs to get licensed and to comply with even well understood regulations can certainly deter tech companies from pursuing a new fintech project. However, the growing challenge for fintech companies is the lack of clarity about how existing regulations apply to new technologies. For a good example, look at money transmitter laws. Not so long ago, many companies and individuals dabbling in cryptocurrency would not have considered their activities to be subject to state or federal money transmitter laws. The IRS treats cryptocurrencies as property and not as currency. Similarly, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has been of the opinion as early as 2015 that cryptocurrency is a commodity rather than a fiat currency. The District Court for the Eastern District of New York in CFTC v. McDonnell, No. 18-cv-0361 even recently adopted the CFTC’s view, which might lead a rational observer to conclude that trading cryptocurrency is not the transmission of “currency” subject to money transmitter laws.

Well that clears that up, right? Not so fast. On March 6, 2018, the same day the Eastern District of New York issued its ruling, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) published a letter it had penned the month prior stating that cryptocurrency token issuers may be money transmitters, and are therefore required to follow federal money transmitter requirements.

So how is a new cryptocurrency company supposed to proceed in light of inconsistent or unclear federal regulations, not to mention the even murkier application of state-by-state money transmitter laws? This is the type of problem fintech companies will routinely face, as the legal establishment struggles to figure out how to apply existing laws to new technologies that do not fit conveniently into previously established paradigms.

This is where the benefit of the Arizona fintech sandbox really come into focus. You don’t need to answer these tough questions right away. Instead, you get two years to test your product, and in that time you can work openly and collaboratively with the Arizona Attorney General and other governing regulatory authorities to figure out how your product fits into the regulatory framework. These exemptions can potentially provide substantial cost savings to sandbox participants. Most importantly, it will allow you to devote more of your focus and resources on development of your innovative product. Sandbox participants will still need to comply with sandbox-specific disclosure and recordkeeping requirements subject to the oversight of the Arizona Attorney General, which I will discuss at greater length in part four. However, these requirements are much easier to comply with than the normal regulatory regime.

About the Author: Michael Rolland is a member of the civil litigation and commercial transactions practice groups with the law firm of Engelman Berger, P.C. Michael has a special interest in the intersection of technology and the law, and writes on tech law issues.

 


Disclaimer: This blog is not legal advice and is only for general, non-specific informational purposes. It is not intended to cover all the issues related to the topic discussed. If you have a legal matter, the specific facts that apply to you may require legal knowledge not addressed by this blog. If you need legal advice, consult with a lawyer.

Let Your People Vote: Employer Obligations on Election Day

As we gear up for Arizona’s 2018 primary election, employers should be aware of their legal obligation to permit employees paid time to vote, without penalty.

Plenty of Early Voting Opportunities

While the primary election is not scheduled until August 28, Arizona’s early voting laws allow early voting both in-person and by mail during the 27 days leading up to the election. Before Election Day, employers can encourage employees to vote on their own time, but have no obligation to give employees paid leave to vote during working hours. To the extent that an employer’s policies permit, however, employees can always elect use their paid time off to drop off a ballot.

Despite the ample early voting opportunities available to Arizona voters, employers are required by Arizona law to permit their employees protected and paid time off to vote on Election Day, without penalty. This law applies to employees whose shift schedules deny them less than three consecutive hours between the opening of the polls and the beginning of their shifts, or between the end of their shifts and the closing of the polls. Because Arizona law requires that the polls remain open from 6:00 a.m., to 7:00 p.m., employers are required to make accommodations for all employees who seek leave to vote, and whose shifts either start before 9:00 a.m. or end after 4:00 p.m.

Employer Responsibilities on Election Day

So, your employees want to leave work to vote on Election Day. What should you do? It’s pretty simple—let them leave to vote. The time an employee spends voting should be paid as time worked, though it’s prudent to log that time separately as “voting time” on employee timesheets. You can’t reduce their wages, or force them to dip into their earned paid time off or sick time. And you can’t penalize them in any way for choosing to vote during working hours.

Over the last four presidential election cycles, 55.0% of Arizona’s voters have been employed in hourly rather than salaried positions. A mass exodus of hourly employees on Election Day could cause staffing problems in many industries. As an employer, you are permitted to provide reasonable restrictions on when your employees can leave work to vote on Election Day. For example, you may specify which hours each employee may be absent to vote, and you can also require that your employees notify you in advance of Election Day to arrange a time that they may leave to vote. You need only provide employees with three consecutive hours in which to cast his or her ballot, either before or after the employee’s shift. While you aren’t required to advertise or give notice of this law, some employers include a provision in their employee handbook that gives employees notice of their rights and of these restrictions.

Any employer that denies its employees the right to leave to vote on Election Day can be charged with a Class 2 misdemeanor. The Arizona Employment Protection Act also gives an employee who has been fired for voting pursuant to this law the right to sue his or her former employer for retaliatory discharge.

Encouraging Civic Engagement Could be Good for Business

We live in a politically charged time. There is much confusion about employees’ rights to “free speech” at work (or lack thereof), and many employees feel passionately about exercising their right to vote. You’re only required to provide paid leave for those employees who request voting leave in advance of Election Day. Still, employers might consider encouraging employees to take time to vote on Election Day if they have not voted early.

Americans are busy people, and many voters are unaware of their early voting opportunities. According to a July 2018 report published jointly by the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission and Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona has one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the nation, and the number one reason Arizonans cite for not voting is that they have no time, or are too busy.

Voting leave is a benefit to which your employees are already entitled. Encouraging civic engagement can boost company morale and employee satisfaction. And we know that employee satisfaction is good for business.

Look for Upcoming Series, “Speech in the Workplace”

Election season can also give rise to toxic political discourse in the workplace. Employers should never miss an opportunity to encourage civility and to ensure that management is leading by example. For more guidance on speech issues, look for our upcoming series “Speech in the Workplace” which will cover topics ranging from political speech and religious freedoms in the workplace, to confidentiality restrictions and policing employees’ use of social media.

About the Author: Meaghan Kramer practices employment law and commercial litigation for EB. Meaghan is interested in the future of work and writes about issues affecting the workplace, including safeguarding workplace confidences, and creating work environments that are free from discrimination and harassment.

 

Disclaimer: This blog is not legal advice and is only for general, non-specific informational purposes. It is not intended to cover all the issues related to the topic discussed. If you have a legal matter, the specific facts that apply to you may require legal knowledge not addressed by this blog. If you need legal advice, consult with a lawyer.

How to Play in Arizona’s Fintech Sandbox – Part I

The Arizona legislature recently signed into law the nation’s first fintech regulatory sandbox, which will start accepting applications on August 3, 2018. Participants in the sandbox will enjoy a reprieve from many of the licensing and regulatory burdens of companies in the financial sector, so the program offers a great incentive for financial technology (aka, “fintech”) companies to settle and operate in Arizona. The purpose of the sandbox is to encourage businesses, including both startups and established companies, to develop innovative products and services in the financial sector.

If you are interested in participating in the sandbox, you may need some help. This is the first in a five part series on how to apply and participate in the sandbox. In this part one, I will give a little background on the history of sandbox programs implemented worldwide and efforts to create similar programs in the United States. Part two will discuss the benefits of participation in the Arizona sandbox. Part three will examine the eligibility requirements. Part four will explain the application process, and part five will address the rules once you are in the sandbox. The official website for the fintech sandbox was recently launched and can be viewed HERE, and the full text of the law can be viewed HERE.

History of the Sandbox

The last couple of years have seen a wave of technological innovation that promises to revolutionize the financial sector. However, the financial sector is also one of the most highly regulated industries, making it very difficult for small, bootstrapped startups to enter the space. The challenge of navigating a myriad of overlapping and complex regulatory and statutory regimes, not to mention the threat of being slapped with crippling legal liability if you fail to comply, is often too much risk for a young entrepreneur to stomach. Compounding the deterrent effect of potential future liability, are the significant up-front legal costs associated with regulatory compliance (this is why people hate lawyers). When faced with that reality, too many entrepreneurs decide it would be easier to just work on safer projects, like another social networking app – and who can blame them?

To address this problem, a handful of countries have created programs dubbed regulatory “sandboxes,” so named because the programs create a regulation-free testing ground in which tech companies can play. Sandboxes provide participants with limited relief from a number of regulatory requirements, allowing participants to test innovative financial products under the close watch of a supervising government authority. Sandboxes are designed to lower the barriers to entry and decrease the time it takes to bring innovations to market, while still giving government sufficient oversight to ensure that consumers remain protected.

The Arizona Sandbox

Despite successful efforts by the U.K., Singapore, U.A.E., Canada, and Australia, the United States has not created their own program. That changed on March 23, 2018, when Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed into law House Bill 2434, making Arizona the first state to create a fintech sandbox. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office will start accepting applications to participate in the sandbox on August 3, 2018, so now is the time to start preparing to enroll. The official website was recently launched, and a preliminary draft of the sandbox application has been posted. Sandbox participants will generally have two years to test their product or service on up to 10,000 Arizona users, provided that they remain in good standing and comply with the sandbox rules.

Future Federal Programs

Arizona’s sandbox program only exempts you from state, not federal, regulations. However, we might see the federal government roll out a federal program modeled on the Arizona sandbox in the near future. Paul Watkins, the chief counsel for the Arizona AG’s civil litigation division and the chief architect of the Arizona sandbox, was recently hired by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to serve as Director of their Office of Innovation and to guide the CFPB’s efforts to make a sandbox of its own. I have also personally heard Mr. Watkins speak about his hope that federal agencies will work with the Arizona AG’s office to provide a similar carve out from federal regulations for companies already participating in the Arizona sandbox, so I would not be surprised if one of his first projects with the CFPB is to implement a program like that.

By granting participants a reprieve from certain state regulations, the sandbox makes Arizona a very attractive place for fintech startups to test and launch their newest products. Perhaps best of all, fintech companies can trade the exorbitant up-front legal fees with a cheaper and more streamlined sandbox application.  If you are a founder of a fintech startup, you may be saying to yourself, “that’s great! How can I play in the sandbox?” That is exactly the question I will answer in this four part series. In part two, I will address the most fundamental question: What’s the benefit? Is the juice worth the squeeze?

About the Author: Michael Rolland is a member of the civil litigation and commercial transactions practice groups with the law firm of Engelman Berger, P.C. Michael has a special interest in the intersection of technology and the law, and writes on tech law issues.

 


Disclaimer: This blog is not legal advice and is only for general, non-specific informational purposes. It is not intended to cover all the issues related to the topic discussed. If you have a legal matter, the specific facts that apply to you may require legal knowledge not addressed by this blog. If you need legal advice, consult with a lawyer.

EB is Now Hiring a Client Service Coordinator

Engelman Berger is hiring an organized, professional, friendly, and pro-active Client Service Coordinator. This person will be a valuable part of our team, ultimately responsible for ensuring that everyone who interacts with EB has the best client service experience possible.

We are looking for someone with intuitive people skills who enjoys the satisfaction that comes with taking care of others. The ideal candidate needs to be able to take direction, but also be a self-starter who takes initiative and enjoys being organized while juggling multiple tasks simultaneously. To ensure a consistent experience both for our visiting guests as well as our own employees, we often have specific guidelines and processes that need to be followed. It is imperative that our Client Service Coordinator be attentive to detail and able to carry through on specific tasks as directed, while always keeping an eye toward improvement. Given the ebb and flow of any front desk environment, our Client Service Coordinator must enjoy and be able to successfully tackle multiple responsibilities at once. This includes client service related tasks such as answering phones, greeting visitors, while also performing conflict checks, opening new matters, closing and archiving client files, ensuring supplies are well stocked, and assisting with marketing functions such as updating materials, ordering client gifts, etc.

Our Client Service Coordinator will have direct communication with existing, new and prospective clients; attorneys; court officials; support staff; and friends of the firm. This position requires a very proactive approach to self-managing their workload, while always maintaining a professional and client service oriented demeanor.

A minimum of 3 years of professional service experience is required, preferably in a law firm. Working at Engelman Berger, you will experience a unique work environment. We believe our people are our greatest asset and are looking for someone who is willing to learn, teach us a few things, and most importantly grow with us! We offer an excellent benefit and compensation package including a competitive salary based on experience, full health coverage, retirement plan, paid time off, etc. We offer a casual yet professional environment and are looking forward to hearing from those who are interested! Please note: Engelman Berger is not accepting resumes from search firms for this position.

For more information, contact Katie Bien our Legal Administrator at keb@eblawyers.com or 602.222.4950. To apply, send your resume and cover letter to Katie Bien.

Engelman Berger Expands its Public Finance Practice with the Addition of Brigitte Finley Green

Engelman Berger is pleased to announce that public finance attorney, Brigitte Finley Green, has joined the firm. Brigitte teams with Julie Arvo MacKenzie in building the firm’s public finance practice area and assisting clients in the business, nonprofit, governmental, banking, finance, healthcare, education, housing, economic development, and real estate sectors.

Brigitte brings more than 20 years of experience to the firm, having worked with clients as bond counsel, special tax counsel, underwriter’s counsel, trustee’s counsel, and disclosure counsel for state and local governments on a variety of tax-exempt and taxable municipal bond and lease-purchase transactions. Brigitte helps clients navigate the complexities of public finance to achieve their goals. She also serves as bond and disclosure counsel on tax-exempt conduit financings for nonprofit charter schools, and has participated in bond financing of multi-family housing facilities, single family mortgage loans, student loans, and facilities for 501(c)(3) organizations.

Prior to private practice, Brigitte spent two years as an attorney advisor with the Internal Revenue Service’s Office of Chief Counsel in Washington D.C., where she practiced exclusively in the tax-exempt bond area. Brigitte has been recognized in Best Lawyers in America© in the category of Public Finance Law every year since 2009. She was also named “Phoenix Lawyer of the Year” by Best Lawyers in America© in the category of Public Finance Law in 2015 and has been AV-Rated by Martindale Hubbell Peer-Review Ratings.

Welcome, Brigitte! We are excited to have you as part of the EB team.

Engelman Berger Welcomes Six Summer 2018 Interns

Engelman Berger is excited to welcome six summer interns to our office this Summer 2018: Connor Folts, Ashish Dubey, Youngseo Lee, Grace Taskinsoy, Spencer Morgan, and Trevor Colceri.

These six interns will be gaining valuable experience and learning about the practice of law. Our interns perform legal research, draft presentations, learn and embrace software programs, and hold training programs regarding new technology. They also attend meetings, depositions, settlement conferences, and hearings.

Two of our interns, Youngseo and Ashish are student leaders of the Mock Trial Club at BASIS Chandler. Thanks to the efforts of its founding president Rahul Jayaraman and coach/attorney David Johnson, BASIS Chandler’s Mock Trial team was formed in 2015 and has competed in the Arizona High School Mock Trial Regional Tournament. Scott Cohen is one of their Mock Trial coaches and works with the students to help them continue to improve their technique and skills. With hard work and dedication, the BASIS Chandler team has won numerous awards in a variety of tournaments. They are working to continue to improve as they will be competing at Regionals for the fourth year in a row. Last year Engelman Berger had three summer interns from BASIS Chandler: Rahul Jayaraman, Jigisha Bagchi, and Mark McGovern.

Connor is currently a student at the Sandra Day O’Connor Law School at Arizona State University. Engelman Berger has created a first-year law student clerkship position for the summer, which we offered to Connor. He will be doing substantive legal work as well as document review and preparation. Read more by clicking here: https://www.eblawyers.com/uncategorized/engelman-berger-creates-first-year-law-student-clerkship-position/

Spencer will be an incoming 1L at Sandra Day O’Connor Law School at ASU this Fall 2018.

Grace has been working with our firm since January 2018 as the Social Media and Marketing Coordinator. She will be starting her junior year at University of Arizona this Fall 2018 where she will be majoring in Communication.

Trevor is finishing up at UofA this Fall 2018 and getting his degree in Business and Marketing.

Welcome to Engelman Berger, summer interns!

Engelman Berger Creates First-Year Law Student Clerkship Position

Engelman Berger has created a first-year law student clerkship position for the summer. We are excited to offer this opportunity to Connor Folts and welcome him to the EB team. Connor is currently a student at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. Before law school, Connor worked with EB as a project clerk while he earned his Bachelor’s Degree in Finance from ASU.

Throughout the summer, Connor will be exposed to many of the firm’s practice areas including bankruptcy, loan workouts, business formation and transactions, commercial litigation, creditor/debtor rights, business and financial restructuring, loan documentation, real estate, and public financing. Working closely with our attorneys, Connor will gain critical experience researching projects, drafting complaints, and attending conferences and hearings.

We are looking forward to working with Connor and providing him with a great summer clerkship experience.

Stephanie Fulk-Higgs Joins EB as Commercial Litigation Paralegal

Engelman Berger is excited to welcome Stephanie Fulk-Higgs to our firm. Stephanie joined our team as a Commercial Litigation paralegal this June. While she will primarily focus on commercial litigation matters, she also has experience with creditor rights. With over 20 years of experience, Stephanie will complement the firm’s practice in the areas of litigation, bankruptcy, and business. Welcome, Stephanie!