fbpx

News (All)

McCormick Elected First Vice President of the Suffolk County Bar Association

Posted: June 2nd, 2022

Campolo, Middleton & McCormick is proud to announce that Senior Partner Patrick McCormick has been elected First Vice President of the Suffolk County Bar Association. As First Vice President, McCormick will continue to advocate for the legal community through legal education programs and represent the SCBA in the absence of the President and President Elect.

This election is a particularly noteworthy professional milestone for McCormick, who has previously served as Second Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer of the SCBA Board of Directors, as well as Dean of the Suffolk Academy of Law. A proven leader in the community, this election highlights McCormick’s long-standing dedication to the SCBA. McCormick was sworn in at the SCBA’s 114th Annual Installation Dinner at Villa Lombardi’s on June 1.

McCormick chairs the Appellate Practice at CMM, having built a reputation as a strategic and talented appellate attorney over three decades in the field. Representing clients in civil and criminal matters in both federal and state courts, he has argued numerous appeals, including three arguments at the New York State Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court. McCormick is also a respected trial attorney, litigating all types of complex commercial and real estate matters. He represents national commercial shopping centers, retailers, and publicly traded home builders in commercial and residential landlord-tenant matters. McCormick has been recognized by his peers with the Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent® rating for ethical standards and legal ability, the highest possible rating from the most recognized legal directory and resource. 

Campolo and Guide Dog Foundation’s Miller Moderate HIA-LI Gold Member Meeting

Posted: May 28th, 2022

If there are two things we love at CMM, it’s puppies and making connections within the business community! CMM’s Joe Campolo, joined John Miller, CEO of the Guide Dog Foundation for the Blind and America’s VetDogs, to moderate a monthly meeting for HIA-LI Gold Members. May’s meeting was held at the Guide Dog Foundation & America’s VetDogs campus in Smithtown with fellow HIA-LI members Terri Alessi-Miceli, Rich Humann, Kevin O’Connor, Scott Maskin, Peter Klein, John Luongo, Allison Norris, and David Okorn.

Attendees were joined by special guest Tony Croslin from the New York Mets who spoke about the team’s great start and their partnership with the Guide Dog Foundation. Guide Dog’s Puppies with a Purpose, Shea and Monte, also made a special appearance!

Gold member Peter Klein and the Claire Friedlander Family Foundation, of which Klein is President, showed their support for the Guide Dog Foundation with a generous donation presented at the meeting.

The HIA-LI Gold program is open to CEOs and Presidents of HIA-LI member companies that have 10 or more employees. Thanks to Joe Campolo’s vision, Gold membership offers CEOs a powerful opportunity to get involved in critical initiatives that will make all the difference for their businesses and for Long Island. If you’re a new business looking to grow, an established business searching for ways to expand, or a member of the business community interested in making connections, then a membership with HIA-LI is an effective way to advance your goals.

HIA-LI’s 34th Annual Trade Show Executive Breakfast

Posted: May 26th, 2022

On May 26, 2022,  Joe Campolo joined HIA-LI’s 34th Annual Trade Show Executive Breakfast as a panelist to discuss his efforts in revitalizing the Long Island economy. The event took place at Suffolk Federal Credit Union Arena and was filled with industry leaders and the business community who were eager to learn about the exciting things happening in our region. Panelists spoke on significant regional projects, several of which Joe Campolo has spearheaded, such as Ronkonkoma Hub, Downtown Patchogue, Long Island Innovation Park at Hauppauge, Long Island MacArthur Airport, Midway Crossing Project, Long Beach and much more.

The discussion was moderated by Marc Herbst, Executive Director at Long Island Contractor’s Association and panelists included Scott Burman, Principal at Engel Burman; John D Cameron Jr., Managing Partner at Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP; Jim Coughlan, Principal at TRITEC Real Estate Co.; and Joe Campolo.

CMM Overcomes Motion to Dismiss in Real Property Compensation Lawsuit

Posted: May 23rd, 2022

CMM recently represented our client, a prominent real estate developer, successfully as the plaintiff in a million-dollar East End real property compensation dispute.

Our client sued the defendants (a real estate brokerage firm and its principal) to recover compensation for various services rendered unrelated to real estate brokerage activities.

Following this lawsuit, the defendants moved for an Order to dismiss the complaint. According to the defendants, our client was not a real estate broker and was therefore prohibited from collecting/splitting any commission and from commencing a legal action seeking such commission.

CMM’s Jeffrey Basso and Rich DeMaio opposed the motion to dismiss and ultimately received a favorable decision from the Court denying the motion in its entirety. In its decision, the Court held that our client’s lawsuit stated viable claims and thus, was sufficient to withstand the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The case will now proceed to discovery where CMM can continue to prosecute the claims on behalf of our client.

CMM’s litigation team is well versed in real estate matters, representing clients in all types from contract disputes to landlord-tenant proceedings. Contact us to learn more.

Sexual Harassment Prevention: What Municipalities Need to Know

Posted: May 19th, 2022

By: Christine Malafi, Esq. email

Tags: ,

Several laws were recently enacted in New York to expand protections for victims of sexual harassment in the workplace. Here, we (1) summarize these new laws, (2) discuss specific considerations for municipalities, (3) highlight new obligations imposed on municipal contractors, and (4) outline several key requirements that all employers must utilize in the workplace.

Expansion of Sexual Harassment Prevention Laws

Definition Expansion

One recent law expanded the scope of anti-discrimination protection under New York’s Human Rights Law by amending the definition of “covered employer,” which, in turn, created a new class of protected employees. Specifically, New York State and its cities, counties, towns, villages, and other political subdivisions, are now considered employers of any employee or official, including elected officials at both the state and local level, persons serving in any judicial capacity, and persons serving on the staff of any elected official.[1] 

The new law also prohibits any activity that subjects employees to inferior terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, regardless of whether the activity is severe or pervasive. Though there may be a defense if the alleged act was a “petty slight or trivial inconvenience,” neither a formal complaint nor a showing that a similarly situated employee was treated more favorably is required to sustain a harassment claim. Moreover, attorney’s fees may be awarded in all such cases.

In addition to employees, these protections also cover contractors, subcontractors, vendors, consultants, and other non-employees working or providing services in the workplace. 

Confidential Hotline

Another new law,[2] effective as of July 14, 2022, launches a statewide, confidential hotline to report sexual harassment in both the public and private sectors. The hotline will be operated by the New York State Division of Human Rights, which will work with attorney organizations to recruit experienced attorneys to provide pro bono assistance to those utilizing the hotline. 

Release of Personnel Records Constitutes Retaliation

An additional new law prohibits employers from releasing or “leaking” personnel records as retaliation against employees who file claims of harassment. The law also allows the attorney general, upon information and belief, to commence a proceeding in state court against employers who have violated or may violate the prohibition against retaliation.[3]

Confidentiality and Arbitration Prohibited in Some Cases

Recent legislation also establishes prohibitions against confidentiality and arbitration in certain cases.  As to confidentiality, all employers are prohibited from utilizing confidentiality agreements in the settlement or resolution of any claim involving sexual harassment, unless confidentiality is the complainant’s preference.  Further, the confidentiality provision must be provided to all parties, and the complainant will have 21 days to consider the provision. If the complainant agrees to the confidentiality provision, it must be stated in a separately executed written agreement, which agreement is subject to revocation by the complainant within seven days after signing.[4]

Mandatory arbitration provisions are likewise barred in contracts relating to claims of sexual harassment, except where permitted by federal law.[5] In fact, employers are only permitted to incorporate a non-prohibited clause or other mandatory arbitration provision within a contract if the parties all agree.[6] 

Likewise, at the federal level, “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021,”[7] signed by President Biden on March 3, 2022, prohibits employers from forcing workplace sexual harassment or assault claims to be resolved by arbitration, even if such an agreement was already signed. Disputes as to whether the Act applies in any given situation are to be decided by a court, not an arbitrator. Further, the Act applies to any dispute or claim that arises or accrues on or after the signing date.

Additionally, in the event of  any conflict between a collective bargaining agreement and the new law, the law specifies that the collective bargaining agreement shall control.[8]

Some Municipality-Only Considerations

The expansion of sexual harassment prevention laws also imposes several municipality-specific obligations.

Municipalities, for example, are barred from defending and indemnifying employees for (1) acts committed outside of the scope of their employment; (2) intentional wrongdoing and recklessness on the part of the employee; and (3) punitive damages.

Further, pursuant to a new section of the New York Public Officers Law, both paid and unpaid employees who are adjudicated to have committed harassment must reimburse the public entity responsible for paying out the harassment claim. If the employee fails to reimburse the public entity within 90 days of the public entity’s payment of the award, the public entity can garnish the employee’s wages.[9] 

Similarly, an additional amendment to New York Public Officers Law adds analogous legislation applicable to employees of New York State and its agencies.[10] Even if a municipality’s investigation reveals that the employee acted appropriately, there is always a chance that a final judgment could find that the employee was individually liable if the litigation proceeds to a hearing before an administrative agency or trial.

The question may be whether the fact that the employee may ultimately have to pay a judgment personally creates a conflict of interest in both the strategy of proceeding to trial on a case or deciding to settle, as well as in the defense of a claim.

Municipal Contractors

New legislation also imposes requirements on contractors that contract with the state, or any state department or agency, where competitive bidding is required. As of January 1, 2019, all such contractors are required to submit a certification with all bids, under penalty of perjury, that the bidder (1) has implemented a written policy addressing sexual harassment prevention in the workplace and (2) provides annual sexual harassment training to all its employees. Further, the written policy and annual training must meet the newly imposed requirements under section 201-g of the New York State Labor Law.[11] It is in the discretion of the state department or agency to require the certification of contracts for services that are not subject to competitive bidding.[12] 

If the contractor fails to meet the certification requirements, it must provide a signed statement detailing the reason for its failure to do so.[13] Otherwise, the contractor’s bid will not be considered.

Takeaways

Considering the recent expansion of legislation addressing sexual harassment in the workplace, all employers, including public entities, must expend resources and educate employees on preventing sexual harassment in the workplace to avoid liability. To that end, below is a list of several key requirements that all employers should adopt in the workplace:

  1. Adopt a model sexual harassment policy
  2. Include a standard complaint form
  3. Have a written procedure for the timely and confidential investigation of complaints and ensure due process for all parties
  4. Post required notices in the workplace
  5. Give the annual interactive training on sexual harassment to all employees (and possibly independent contractors)
  6. Make sure supervisory employees know their responsibilities for the prevention of sexual harassment


[1] N.Y. Exec. Law § 292.

[2] N.Y. Exec. Law § 295(18).

[3] N.Y. Exec. Law § 296.

[4] N.Y. Gen. Obligations Law § 5-336.

[5] N.Y. Civ. Prac. L&R § 5003-b.

[6] N.Y. Civ. Prac. L&R § 7515(4)(b)(ii).

[7] 9 U.S.C. Chap. 4 §§ 401-402.

[8] N.Y. Civ. Prac. L&R § 7515(4)(c).

[9] N.Y. Public Officers Law § 18-a.

[10] N.Y. Public Officers Law § 17-a.

[11] N.Y. Finance Law § 139-1(1)(a).

[12] N.Y. Finance Law § 139-1(1)(b).

[13] N.Y. Finance Law § 139-1(3).

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.

Maintaining Client Confidences: Ethical Considerations for Attorneys When Posting on Social Media

Posted: May 5th, 2022

By: Patrick McCormick, Esq. email

Published In: The Suffolk Lawyer

Tags:

So, you want to brag about your latest courtroom victory or closed deal on social media.

Congrats on your win! But be mindful: unless you have informed consent from your client, any social media bragging could reveal confidential client information and result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. (Yes, even if you share information or facts in the public record such as a trial verdict.)

Maintaining Client Confidences

The New York Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 defines confidential information as “information gained during or relating to the representation of a client, whatever its source, that is (a) protected by the attorney-client privilege, (b) likely to be embarrassing or detrimental to the client if disclosed, or (c) information that the client has requested be kept confidential.”[i] (The ethical obligations concerning client confidentiality and confidential information are distinct from the rules of the evidentiary attorney-client privilege. The intersection of attorney-client privilege and social media is not addressed in this article.)[ii]

Maintaining client confidences and confidential information applies to any and all attorney social media activity. While each situation is fact-specific, attorneys should keep a few things in mind when deciding whether and what to post on social media (and beyond).

New York Rules of Professional Conduct

Rule 1.6(a)

The rules protecting client confidential information are outlined in the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (effective April 1, 2009, and amended through June 24, 2020). According to Rule 1.6(a), a lawyer shall not knowingly reveal confidential information or use such information to the disadvantage of the client or for the advantage of the lawyer or a third person.

Rule 1.6 confirms that confidential information (as defined above) does not include a lawyer’s legal knowledge and/or research. Confidential information does not include information that is generally known in the local community or in the trade, field, or profession to which the information relates. However, as noted in the commentary to Rule 1.6, the fact that information may be part of a publicly available file or a result is in the “public domain” does not make the information “generally known.”

Under Rule 1.6(a), client confidentiality must be maintained unless:

  1. The client gives informed consent
  2. The disclosure is impliedly authorized to advance the best interests of the client

So if you close a deal for a high-profile client and that client gives you permission to post about it, then you can go ahead with your brag post.

However, if an attorney does not receive informed consent from their client, Rule 1.6(a) cannot be skirted by using an anonymous post that’s anything but anonymous. For example, a Twitter rant talking about client xx, her new SNL boyfriend, and her divorce from a famous rapper who sent her threats online would raise some eyebrows. That’s because while the client technically remains anonymous, there are glaring identifiable descriptors of the client. Anonymous posts must truly be anonymous. Your legal blog can’t say your client is Jim Jardashian under the guise of anonymity. A lawyer’s ethical obligations do not just disappear because an interaction occurs online.

These principles apply to all social media activity including posting on platforms such as Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and TikTok. But the required analysis is not limited to posting on social media; the same analysis also applies when lawyers respond to online reviews or reply to online comments, or when posting blogs or on websites. Client confidences must be maintained throughout all these different interactions, and lawyers should understand how the platforms they are using work before using them and consider if any of their online activity places client information and confidences at risk.[iii]

Rule 1.6(b)

Sometimes, a lawyer might need to reveal or use confidential information. Such disclosure is allowed only in circumstances that a lawyer believes necessary under Rule 1.6(b), which says confidential information can be revealed:

  1. To prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm
  2. To prevent the client from committing a crime
  3. To withdraw a written or oral opinion or representation previously given by the lawyer and reasonably believed by the lawyer still to be relied upon by a third person, where the lawyer has discovered that the opinion or representation was based on materially inaccurate information or is being used to further a crime or fraud
  4. To secure legal advice about compliance with these Rules or other law by the lawyer, another lawyer associated with the lawyer’s firm or the law firm
  5. To defend the lawyer or the lawyer’s employees and associates against an accusation of wrongful conduct or to establish or collect a fee
  6. When permitted or required under these Rules or to comply with other law or court order

But while Rule 1.6(b) sets out certain situations in which a lawyer can disclose confidential information, attorneys must consider that Rule 1.6(c) requires the lawyer to make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure or use of, or unauthorized access to, information protected by Rules 1.6, 1.9(c), or 1.18(b). (Rule 1.6 refers to confidentiality of information as referenced above in parts a, b, and c. Rule 1.9(c) refers to confidentiality rules and protections for former clients, and Rule 1.18(b) refers to confidentiality rules and protection for prospective clients.) Given the public nature of online communications, social media and other postings are almost certainly not the appropriate forum for disclosures that might otherwise be permissible.

Conclusion

Essentially, lawyers have the ethical responsibility to former, current, and prospective clients to keep information learned during or relating to the representation of a client confidential. Unless your client has given you permission to disclose the information you’re posting, or disclosure is otherwise authorized under Rule 1.6(b), you’re bound by the ethical rules of client confidentiality. Each scenario is fact-specific, so here’s your friendly reminder to be careful with what you post on social media. And congrats on landing Jim Jardashian as a client!


[i] NYRPC §1200 (Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6)

[ii] N.Y.C.P.L.R. §4503

[iii] NYSBA, of the Social Media Ethics Guidelines, June 20, 2019, at No. 5.E

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.

Malafi shares M&A Insights on Panel of XPX Long Island: Bringing Key People Under the Tent

Posted: May 4th, 2022

Event Date: May 6th, 2022

Every business exit is an emotional roller coaster for both the owners and employees. Business owners have the ability to either alleviate fear or exacerbate it, so it is essential to set the right tone and carefully manage the message.

Join us on May 6th for XPX Long Island: Bringing Key People Under the Tent: Key Concerns and Best Practices. CMM Senior Partner Christine Malafi, chair of our Corporate Department, is invited as a panelist to discuss how to successfully lead a team through an acquisition transition.

Christine has led the CMM legal team in closing countless M&A deals worth billions of dollars. She has vast experience advising on both buy-side and sell-side M&A transactions in a variety of industries, including technology, manufacturing, education, healthcare, and professional service sectors. 

In this interactive session, the panelists will explore best practices for:

  • Bringing Key People “Under the Tent” [When and How]
  • Addressing Rumor Mill concerns
  • Compensation strategies to both retain and reward key employees

DETAILS

Date & Time: Fri, May 6th, 2022 | 8:30am – 10:30am

Location: Heritage Club at Bethpage – 99 Quaker Meeting House Road | Farmingdale, NY 11735

SPEAKERS

Moderator:

Diana Hopkins, CFA – Managing Director, Valuation & Business Analytics
BDO

Panelists:

Christine Malafi, Esq. – Senior Partner, Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP

Jeffrey L. Bass, M.A., M.P.A. – Managing Member, Executive Strategies Group LLC

Bob Doyle – Partner, Imperial Advisory

Christopher Martens – Business Development Executive, MarshMcLennan

Richard DeMaio and Marc Saracino Promoted to Senior Associate

Posted: April 27th, 2022

Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP, a premier law firm with offices across Long Island – recognized by Forbes as a Top Corporate Law Firm in America – is delighted to announce that Richard DeMaio and Marc Saracino have been promoted to Senior Associate.

“This is an important milestone in both Rich and Marc’s careers and is very well deserved for both,” said Managing Partner Joe Campolo.

Saracino began his career at the international law firm Milbank LLP in Manhattan, where he focused on structured and specialty finance and securitization. At CMM, he is a member of the Corporate team, focusing on complex M&A matters, private placements, commercial leasing, employment issues, and a variety of corporate transactions. Saracino is a magna cum laude graduate of New York Law School, where he served on New York Law School Law Review, and graduated from Binghamton University.

DeMaio is a litigator focusing on commercial disputes and environmental matters in state and federal court, municipal litigation, commercial landlord-tenant cases, and a variety of appeals. His municipal work includes Article 78 proceedings, zoning/land use matters, and defending municipalities. DeMaio graduated cum laude from the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, where he served as Notes Editor of Hofstra Law Review. He also earned his undergraduate degree from Hofstra. DeMaio joined CMM as a Summer Associate in 2016.