Presentations and Publications

ETHICS AND SOCIAL MEDIA PRESENTATION AT 2017 STATE BAR CONVENTION

In June, Thorpe Shwer attorney, Tyler Grim, participated in a panel presentation at the 2017 State Bar Convention entitled “The Ethical Pitfalls of Social Media.” The presentation focused on several unique ethical issues that arise when attorneys use both personal and professional social media platforms (i.e. LinkedIn, Avvo, Facebook, etc.) including improper solicitation and advertising, conflicts of interest, the inadvertent formation of an attorney-client relationship, and the inappropriate practice of law across state lines.   

PRESENTATION AT MARICOPA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION CLE

Thorpe Shwer attorney, Tyler Grim, recently moderated a panel featuring several prominent Phoenix bankruptcy practitioners and the Honorable Edward P. Ballinger, which discussed significant developments in 9th Circuit bankruptcy jurisprudence in 2016. The panel analyzed and discussed several decisions rendered by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Court of Appeals, which altered the landscape of Chapter 11, Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 practice,

PRESENTATION BY KRISTIN PAIVA AT NARTC WINTER MEETING

In March, Thorpe Shwer partner, Kristin Paiva, presented to attorneys and other industry leaders at the Winter meeting of the National Association of Railroad Trial Counsel about how state regulations are treated in the context of the Federal Employers Liability Act (“FELA”). 45 U.S.C. § 54a provides that certain regulations, standards, and requirements prescribed by a State agency are deemed to be “statutes” for the purposes of Sections 53 and 54 of the Federal Employers Liability Act. Ms. Paiva’s presentation, entitled: “The Scope of Section 54a: An analysis of the actionability of state regulations under the FELA,” explored the kinds of state regulations that should be considered “statutes” and the reasons why it matters in the context of FELA litigation. Ms. Paiva also examine the applicable federal precedent and scrutinized arguments made by plaintiff’s counsel in favor of a broad interpretation.