Attorney of the Month Law Firm of the Month Mitchell M. Tarighati Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP Kurt Maahs Timothy Tonkin Attorney Phillips Law Group, P.C. (619) 252-4829 kurtm@phillipslaw.com timt@phillipslaw.com Attorney Phillips Law Group, P.C. Attorney Phillips Law Group, P.C. Arizona Referral & Co-Counsel Relationships ONE OF ARIZONA’S LARGEST CONSUMER LAW FIRMS Since 1993. Over 145,000 Clients Served. Phoenix, Tucson and all of Arizona. (800)706-3000 Text Je rey with any Arizona Law questions. Generous Referral Fees Paid.As if meeting brilliant and delightful attor- neys wasn’t enough in my role as publisher of this magazine, I now have the pleasure of interviewing them and writing their life stories, too. There are always interesting things about them I never would have known had I not sat across from them and had them tell me their tales. Such is the case with this is- sue’s Attorney of the Month Mitchell Tarighati, a lawyer and mediator who escaped conflict in his homeland and built a career resolving conflicts here. I hope you enjoy reading about his journey as much as I enjoyed relaying it. I also had the pleasure of telling the story of Law Firm of the Month Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP, which handles employment law. New in town, this firm is reaching for the stars and making it big. On the informational front, I am excited to introduce readers to our new contributing editors, Drs. Roman Garagulagian and Mat- thew McMahon of Forensic Economic Services. In this and upcom- ing columns, they will impart their knowledge in the complicated arena of economic damage and more! Happy Reading! Sarah Publisher storres@attorneyatlawmagazine.com (323) 539-3983 Attorney at Law Magazine is published by: Target Market Media Publications Inc. Ken Minniti PRESIDENT & CEO OF Target Market Media Publications, Inc. EXECUTIVE PUBLISHER/ EDITOR IN CHIEF Attorney at law Magazine Howard LaGraffe VICE PRESIDENT Caitlin Keniston EDITOR Sarah Torres LOS ANGELES PUBLISHER Jaqueline Dávila GRAPHIC DESIGN Veronica Jauregui ASSISTANT EDITOR Ellen Cohen Dimple Dang Stephen Danz Roman Garaulagian, Ph. D. Navid Kanian Matthew McMahon, Ph. D. CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Frederick Shelton CONTRIBUTING WRITER Brian Motley Photographer PHOTOGRAPHY Copyright ©2019, Target Market Media all rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or part is strictly prohibited. Advertising rates on request. Bulk third class (standard) mail. Although every precaution is taken to ensure accuracy of published materials, Attorney at Law Magazine & Target Market Media cannot be held responsible for opinions expressed or facts supplied by authors. Corporate Office : 5828 North 7th Street, Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Phone (480) 219-9716 www.tmmpublications.com • info@tmmpublications.com LETTER FROM Publisher DIMPLE DANG LEGAL MARKETING ROMAN GARAGULAGIAN FORENSIC ECONOMICS NAVID KANANI EMPLOYMENT MATTHEW MCMAHON FORENSIC ECONOMICS STEPHEN DANZ EMPLOYMENT ELLEN COHEN LEGAL COACH CONTRIBUTING Editors Northern Alabama | Atlanta | Chicago | Dallas | Ft. Lauderdale Jacksonville | Los Angeles | Miami | Minnesota North Carolina Triangle | Ohio | Philadelphia | Phoenix | San Antonio Salt Lake City | Middle Tennessee | Washington D.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW MAGAZINE · LOS ANGELES · VOL. 5 NO. 6 47 Extreme Economic Hardship Considerations for I-601A Applicants’ Qualifying Relatives By Roman Garagulagian Ph.D. and Matthew McMahon Ph.D. 8 Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP Law Firm of the Month 14 4 Mistakes to Avoid When You Need More Time After Receiving an Offer By Frederick Shelton 15 How to Use LinkedIn Video for Your Law Firm By Dimple Dang 16 Mitchell M. Tarighati Attorney of the Month 24 Reduce Stress in Five (Surprising?) Ways! By Ellen Cohen 25 A Review of CA Employment Laws Taking Effect in 2020 By Stephen Danz and Navid Kanani SPECIAL SECTIONS 26 Talk on the Town 28 Out on the Town TABLE OF Contents 16 AttorneyAtLawMagazine.com 5BYRONMOTLEY BUSINESS PHOTOGRAPHY FOR PROFESSIONALS, BUSINESS OWNERS, ENTREPRENEURS, INFLUENCERS, LEADERS, SPEAKERS, TRAINERS, COACHES, EXPERTS, AUTHORS, EVENTS, STAFF PHOTOS Photographer www.ByronMotleyPhotography.com (323) 982-0552 (323) 314-4049 On July 22, 2016, the Obama administration expanded the I-601A provisional waivers for individuals considered inadmissible under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I),(II). This has al- lowed applicants to submit waiver ap- plications prior to leaving the coun- try. An I-601A application allows un- lawful presence in the United States if the removal of the applicant poses ex- treme hardship to a qualifying relative who holds legal standing as a citizen. Extreme hardship is a multifaceted term and includes impact on family ties, social and cultural factors, eco- nomic factors, health conditions, spe- cial needs for family members, and existing conditions in the country of relocation. This article will be focused solely on determining economic im- pact to the qualifying relative asso- ciated with the denial of the I-601A provisional waiver. Factors to Consider The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services considers the following factors to play a significant role in determining economic hard- ship. • Economic impact of applicant’s departure on the qualifying rela- tive, including the applicant’s or qualifying relative’s ability to obtain employment in the country of relo- cation. • Economic impact resulting from the sale of a home, business or oth- er asset. • Economic impact resulting from the termination of a professional practice. • Decline in the standard of living, including due to significant unem- ployment, underemployment, or other lack of economic opportunity in the country of relocation. • Ability to recoup losses or repay student loan debt. • Cost of extraordinary needs, such as special education or training for children. • Cost of care for family members, including children, and elderly, sick or disabled parents. In calculating the economic impact on the qualifying relative one must consider the impact of the departure of the applicant or the scenario in which the entire family relocates. In the first scenario, where the applicant is denied admission and the qualify- ing relative remains in the United States, the detriment to the qualifying relative will derive from the loss sup- port from the applicant’s earnings and household services. In the second scenario, in which the qualifying relative relocates to the country of the applicant’s citizenship, the fundamental losses stem from the decline in the standard of living, in- cluding significant unemployment, underemployment, or other lack of economic opportunity in the country of relocation. In both cases, factors include the sale of property and assets, the termi- nation of professional practices, abili- ty to recoup losses or repay loans, and extraordinary cost associated with the care of elderly, sick or family mem- bers with special needs. In order to determine whether the loss is economic hardship, we rely on the definition provided by the NCIS and propose and unbiased metric. We focus primarily on the fact that the inability to recoup losses or re- pay student debt is economic hard- ship by the NCIS. We thus propose a metric relying on the level of loss to the qualifying relative and the ability to earn above their expected lifetime earnings given an investment vehicle that provides return. In order to produce an unbiased measure, one must first consider the relative magnitude of that loss as it compares to the income of the quali- fying relative. For example, if the loss of the applicant’s departure is low relative to the qualifying relative’s in- come over healthy life expectancy, it signifies that the qualifying relative may be able to achieve the same liv- ing standard without the applicant by investing savings in a financial asset. This would not qualify as hardship. On the other hand, if the loss is relatively high compared to the quali- fying relative’s income, then the quali- fying relative may not be able to re- coup losses. Thus, financial hardship occurs when present value of future losses divided by earnings based on savings to healthy life expectancy is above one. Given the rising demand for I- 601A waivers and the lack of existing economic analysis devoted toward them, it may very well be a valu- able and profitable contribution that economists can make to immigrant communities by providing an eco- nomic impact report. This impact report is very likely to not only help the reviewing office to understand the quantitative impact sustained by the qualifying relative but also add value in determining extreme hardship. ROMAN GARAGULAGIAN PH.D. & MATTHEW MCMAHON PH.D. | Forensic Economics Dr. Roman Garagulagian is the founder of Forensic Economic Services. He is an econo- mist specializing in analytics and determining economic damages with experience in applying economic theory, complex data and quantitative methods to questions re- lated to litigation. He can be reached at roman@Rule703.com.Dr. Matthew McMahon is an economist with Forensic Economic Services. Holding a research and management background, he specializes in finance, management and neuro-economics, primarily us- ing financial modeling to apply data in decision making. He can be reached at matt@ rule703.com. Extreme Economic Hardship Considerations for I-601A Applicants’ Qualifying Relatives Roman Garagulagian Ph.D.Matthew McMahon Ph.D. AttorneyAtLawMagazine.com 7Law Firm of the Month ATTORNEY AT LAW MAGAZINE · LOS ANGELES · VOL. 5 NO. 6 8T housands migrate to California every year with dreams of stardom and success. For labor and employment firm Con- stangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP, those dreams came true in a very short time. Already thriving in 21 cities around the country and headquartered in Atlanta, Constangy has built three California offices, a total attorney staff of 35 and a list of corporate clients that looks like a Fortune 100 list in just under four years. The California partners credit its solid national reputation, a commitment to diversity and smart recruitment for its rapid growth. “It’s a great group of people we’ve brought to the firm, and the cli- ents have really responded,” says Ken Sulzer, who signed on to lead the practice in California, starting in Los Angeles in 2016. The L.A. office is now made up of 25 lawyers. Eight attorneys in the San Francisco of- fice and two attorneys in the Orange County office round out the rest of the firm’s California presence. Sulzer says the California presence was needed both to serve Con- stangy clients from across the country with operations in California and to tap into the growing needs of California employers, who face significantly more regulation and oversight in labor and employment law than those in other states. To date, these employers include clients like NCAA, NASCAR, Taco Bell, Anthem Blue Cross, Bristol Farms, Albertsons, The Cheesecake Factory Inc., Cantor Fitzgerald, Tenex, National Hot Rod Association, Swissport, Ryder Truck, Ready Pac, Annapurna Pictures and Target. Sulzer was formerly co-head of Class Action Labor and Employ- ment at Proskauer and prior to that the head of California Labor and Employment at Seyfarth. He says that he was attracted to Constangy by Denver partner Steven Moore (who had been co-counsel on a large class action case) as well as executive committee chair Neil Wasser and Kansas City partner Don Prophete. Moore persuaded Sulzer to help start and lead the firm’s California labor and employment practice, particularly in the area of defending class actions and claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act. Written By Sarah Torres Photographed By Byron Motley Constangy, Brooks, Smith Law in Living Color Prophete LLP AttorneyAtLawMagazine.com 9Next >