< PreviousChange is the way of life. When we get to the other side of this pandemic, many things will be different—some better, some worse. Some will make life easier. Some will make life more difficult. While life is always about change, this pandemic has ratcheted up the feeling that it’s more aggressive, obvi- ous and oppressive. Life is now filled with more volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity that go to the heart of our wellbeing and psy- chological safety. You can either resist or embrace the change: How do you want to come through this? WHAT DOES RESISTANCE LOOK LIKE? We often get stuck in the that’s- the-way-it’s-always-been-done or the it-worked-before-so-why-would- we-need-to-change-it? perspective, which is known as the “fixed” or “closed” mindset. A fixed mindset can insure continuity with an allegiance to the past as well as a bow to the institu- tional processes and adherence to es- tablished process. While this perspec- tive provides some psychological safe- ty in the presumption that less change equals less risk, like it or not, change is upon us. So the question is: Do we operate as if nothing has changed and continue to do things the way we’ve always done them or are we going to try something new and different—try an approach, mindset or perspective that we had resist- ed previously? For some, it’s just small shift, a small nuance of change. But for the significant part of the population, it’s an operational, soul- wrenching lack of choice: Change, be changed, fall behind or fall off. WHAT ABOUT EMBRACING IT? A growth or open mindset is one that continually looks for new ways of doing things. As President John F. Kennedy noted, “Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.” To embrace change, you can allow your creative mind to wonder and explore what’s possible if there were no boundaries, limits or self- limiting beliefs holding you back. I believe that there is no better time than now to throw down the gaunt- let and allow yourself to be an adven- turer, a moon walker, an explorer in re-evaluating everything and inviting innovation into your life in any and all categories. Remember all those pre-digital companies that thought they had it down, that didn’t need to change or adapt because what they were doing was working, like Polaroid and Blockbuster? They were so busy looking behind that they failed to look ahead. As Judith Glaser writes in her book “Conversational Intelligence,” “Change is the nature of every suc- cessful company’s journey. When the market shifts, successful companies need to be agile; they must be able to get in front of the curve and succeed time and again.” This is as true for law practices as it is for everything. So here’s my challenge to you: Try something new and different in one, some or all of the categories of your life! Are you ready to be the innovator, change-maker and visionary or a vic- tim of change, fearful, stuck and hold- ing onto old ways? What processes, perspectives, mindsets and beliefs are you willing to examine, challenge, stress-test and re-evaluate? Take a look at your work, your personal life, your career, your business, your home, your relationships—all the things in your life—and ask yourself these two questions: 1. What is truly working and doesn’t need change? 2. What isn’t working, and what are you willing to do to make it work? Go back to the first question and analyze why you think it’s working and why you think something doesn’t need to change. And by change, per- haps it’s just growth, adaptation, new perspectives, development, upskilling or maybe some new habits. In either question, it might be something as simple as rearranging your sock drawer or trying a new recipe (or actually cooking!) or some- thing much bigger such as coming up with an idea for adding a specialty to your law practice, finally deciding that you are going to go for the big dream, or coming up with a new methodol- ogy for your practice. What can you change and think differently about? Everything is up for re-thinking! As James Clear discusses in “Atom- ic Habits,” Small changes can trigger atomic results. Go big or go small but live in an open state of mind, taking the time to consider new perspec- tives and new habits. So when this pandemic allows us to return to some normalcy, you will be well positioned for growth and in a positive and pro- ductive mindset.” ELLEN COHEN | Legal Coach Ellen Cohen, JD, CPCC, PCC., is an executive coach and attorney. She is certified by CTI and International Coach Federation and is an enhanced practitioner in Conversational Intelligence (CIQ). She focuses her coaching on senior executives and lawyers in law firms and corporations to enhance their professional impact, build high-performance skills and cultivate wellbeing and resilience. Prior to becoming a coach, Ellen spent 20+ years as an entertainment attorney at Disney, Showtime, Sony, Fox and Microsoft. She received her BA from Brandeis University and her JD from Emory University School of Law. To find out more: ebccoaching.com or linkedin.com/in/ebccoaching. Embrace Change for a Balanced Practice and Life ATTORNEY AT LAW MAGAZINE · LOS ANGELES · VOL. 6 NO. 2 10Calculation of economic dam- ages for wrongfully terminated employees should now account for “tax neutralization.” On Feb. 4, 2019, the California Court of Appeals approved the Judge’s order to award a for tax neutralization in a wrongful termination matter. The most recent case (Kenneth Economy v. Sutter Hospital) involved an anesthesiologist who practiced at a hospital from 1991 until his termi- nation in 2011. Plaintiff filed a com- plaint against the hospital alleging numerous causes of action, some of which were settled prior to trial. Fol- lowing a court trial, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff. The court awarded the plaintiff $3,867,122 in damages, including $650,910 for “tax neutralization.” The defendant made a motion to the Supreme Court of the State of California to reverse the judge’s decision regarding the li- ability of the case. The Supreme Court of the State of California refused to re- view the appeal filed by Sutter. There- fore, the Court of Appeals’ decision regarding tax neutralization has now set the standard. Tax implications are often ignored under the assumption that the taxes on the award and the taxes that would have been levied on the lost wages year by year would be equal. Ignoring taxes charged on both the lost earn- ings and the award would be errone- ous, as the actual amount received by the plaintiff would be substantially different in either case. Since damag- es are taxable, just as are the earnings that would have been received but for the incident, the taxes levied on the award will very likely exceed the taxes that would have been paid on the lost earnings year-by-year. Federal tax rates are progressive, meaning that they rise with taxable income. Therefore, the award of back and front pay in one lump sum in- creases the federal tax liability com- pared to the tax liability that the plain- tiff would have incurred if wages were earned year-by-year. This increase in federal tax liability is known as the “adverse tax consequence” of a lump sum award, implying that the plain- tiff should be compensated a dollar amount equal to the adverse tax con- sequence. In other words, an award needs an adjustment to its size, so that the after-tax value of the award would be the same as it would have been if losses had not occurred. The addi- tional payment further compounds the calculation. This is because an additional tax liability requires an ad- ditional payment to be made, which then again changes the tax liability causing the process to repeat until the adverse tax consequence is eliminated and tax neutralization occurs. This may also be dependent on other fac- tors such as the resulting tax bracket. Solving such problems requires a pro- cess of backward induction. With the landscape of wrongful termination considerations changing in recent years, economists should account for the adverse tax conse- quence and tax neutralization effect for federal income taxes, state income taxes and payroll taxes. It is equally important for attorneys to recognize this in damage calculations to assure the best outcome for their client. As a retaining attorney, always ask your economist to provide calculations that include: 1. Plaintiff’s total tax liability had Plaintiff not been terminated and continued to earn income. 2. The amount Plaintiff would have to pay in taxes if awarded the comput- ed loss of earnings (back and front pay). 3. The tax neutralization amount. Doing so ensures that the econo- mist is aware of adverse tax conse- quences and can calculate them. It also provides a more accurate and often higher award to the client. In future years it will surely be interest- ing to see how future decisions will impact the way both attorneys and economists must consider tax impli- cations of damages calculations. 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 manage- ment background, he specializes in finance, management and neuro-economics, pri- marily using financial modeling to apply data in decision making. He can be reached at matt@rule703.com. Offsetting the Increased Tax Burden Resulting from a Lump Sum Award ROMAN GARAGULAGIAN MATTHEW MCMAHON AttorneyAtLawMagazine.com 11Attorney of the Month Victor GeorgeVG On a Journey for Justice By Sarah Torres Photography by Armando Antonia Victor George From his West Virginia coal-country roots to his extensive travels to historic sites of injustice, one thing has been clear to attorney Victor George throughout his life: Underdogs are everywhere. George, who represents those who have suffered catastrophic injury as well as harassment or discrimination in the workplace, is known for seeking justice in Southern California, but it’s his experiences around the world that fuel the passion to give the maligned a helping hand. “The work I do is for victims,” George says, “the people who are working hard and living the best life they are able when something ter- rible happens.” In his childhood home in West Virginia’s coal mining and steel region, something ter- rible was not hard to find. Black lung, dismal and treacherous job conditions, pit disasters and a company store that virtually robbed generations of miners of their wages in ex- change for their basic necessities were the common, if not daily, afflictions. “Coal mining is such a hard job. I don’t think the mine owners ever put the miners first,” says George, one of five children of an entrepreneurial father and a doting stay-at-home mother who was exceptionally active in the community. “Growing up there, you very much get an idea early on of whose side you’re on.” “The work I do is for victims, the people who are working hard and living the best life they are able when something terrible happens.” AttorneyAtLawMagazine.com 13George’s wanderlust took seed in his college years, when he and a friend drove across the United States, picking up odd jobs in between seeing sites that included Mt. Rushmore, New Orleans, Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon. The last stretch of the trip sealed his future. “We drove down PCH from Carmel and Monterrey, and I saw Malibu and Pepperdine,” he says. “I thought, ‘It would be fantastic to go to law school in California.’ When Pepper- dine said yes, I packed up my car and drove out here. I knew it would be terrific and it has been.” His biggest joys about the Southland were the activity-friendly weather, the prospects and the diversity. Landing in the mid ’80s, he says, was very exciting. “It seemed like there was so much going on here, so much opportunity to learn,” he says, adding that he’s a very curious person. “There were so many different cultures to be influ- enced by and so many unique people around Los Angeles. L.A. is as interesting a city as anywhere in the United States. I enjoyed ev- erything about it.” Not to say there wasn’t work to do. People were getting injured and people were suffering workplace discrimination. L.A. was no differ- ent from other places in that regard. Drawing on the qualities he observed in his father, he struck out on his own to see their justice was served. “I grew up seeing his self-confidence, that somehow things would work out,” George says. “He took a lot of risk, but he taught me that it’s best to be your own boss. You work extra hard if you know it’s for your family.” George’s work paid off for not only the family he was building, but for his clients and theirs. Following a nine-month trip around the world on a Pan Am open ticket that took him to exotic locales including the Great Barrier Reef, the Taj Mahal, China, - and the Pyramids, he opened his own firm in 1990. At one point he enjoyed a 10-year winning streak on every case he took to trial. “If I take the case,” he says, “it’s because I believe the plaintiff has truly been wronged.” One of his most recent landmark cases is Zizette v Starline Tours et al, which achieved a $26-million jury verdict for the wrongful death of 16-year-old Mason Zizette, who perished in an accident on a double-decker tour bus during a sweet 16 birthday party. With damages for the parents based only on “loss of love,” it was the largest jury verdict in U.S. history for the death of a minor. “It changed a lot of laws for what needs to be done on those double-decker buses,” adds George. “They’re certainly safer now. The tragic event that happened to Mason won’t happen again.” ATTORNEY AT LAW MAGAZINE · LOS ANGELES · VOL. 6 NO. 2 14Slipping in just under the wire before the Covid-19 virus quarantine was a large win against Wells Fargo in federal court. The jury not only found for his client, a Filipino em- ployee who suffered from endometriosis, but they also unanimously found for “punitive damages” to punish Wells Fargo’s “malicious” behavior in the disability discrimination jury verdict. “I sincerely hope that this was a huge les- son to Wells Fargo to stop treating ‘small’ indi- viduals like they are disposable,” George says. “This trial verdict proves Wells Fargo is not ‘too big to fail.’” Another recent case is one of his most in- teresting. Mackey v. Helinet Aviation Services pinned his client, a single mom selling heli- copter equipment, against the high-ranking FBI manager who was sexually harassing and assaulting her. In a bizarre twist of retalia- tions and investigations aimed at the plaintiff, George prevailed with a $4.25-million jury verdict. As the father of five children, four of them daughters, George says he has a particular de- sire for representing females. He sits on the executive board of the California Women’s Law Center, a non-profit that addresses legal issues for women and girls. Gender discrimi- nation, the glass ceiling, pregnancy discrimi- nation and sexual harassment, he says, top his list of legal passions. One of his biggest wins under the gender discrimination umbrella came back in 2007, when he represented a sexually harassed host- ess at an A-list Malibu restaurant in Leontari- tis v. Taverna Tony. The verdict: $5.4 million. “I try to make sure women are getting a fair shake,” he says. “A lot of my practice is fighting for the rights of women in those areas.” The most important legal need for women, he says: Pay equality. He cites the Lily Ledbet- ter Act, which brought to light the recognition that females across the United States were of- ten doing the same job as men for lesser pay, as making strides in this arena. “That women’s issue has always jumped out at me—the audacity that a woman would get less pay based only on her gender,” he says. He says #MeToo has also brought even more women’s causes to light, but that a vast many women in the lower rungs of society, where men are controlling their hours and pay, are not reaping the benefits of the movement. “There are so many working females that don’t have access to justice,” George explains. “They’re cleaning office business, restaurant servers and cashiers—not high-paying jobs— and they don’t know an attorney to call. They may not recognize they’re being bullied. There are still way too many males that continually ignore the law toward females.” Fighting national origin discrimination in a post-9/11 climate, he won a $7-million jury verdict for a Palestinian plaintiff who sued his employer for breach of contract and fraud. Omari v. Kindred Health Care was one of the country’s largest jury trial victories ever for discrimination against a Muslim. “I was surrounded by people all my life of all ethnicities and never thought to judge any- one based on skin color, religion, or where they were from,” George explains of his stand against bigotry. The question always was: Who’s nice? Who’s honest?” Impactful as some of his previous cases were, they didn’t have the profile of some of the victims he’s representing now. George is representing parents, children and spouses who lost loved ones in the Octo- ber 2017 shooting in Las Vegas that killed 58 people in a wrongful death case. And he is now suing L.A. County Sheriffs and the State of Cal- ifornia on behalf of the family of Tristan Beau- dette, who was shot while camping at Malibu Creek State Park with his two small daughters. “The next morning the L.A County Sheriff’s office announces seven different shootings of which they had been aware in the park area over the prior 19 months, but they didn’t tell the public until Tristan was killed,” George la- ments. “Tristan would never have taken his little girls into the park if he knew about all the unresolved shootings.” “Horribly sad” cases like these, he says, are the toughest part of his career, and they are very challenging when it comes to juries. He says he need always ask jury members if they are OK with awarding monetary damages for wrongful death. “During voir dire, jurors will often ask, ‘I don’t understand how money corrects a death, money will not bring back the dead. Why money?’” he says. “Those are insightful ques- tions. That’s our system. But what the families really want is for the deceased to somehow re- turn.” “I try to make sure women are getting a fair shake. A lot of my practice is fighting for the rights of women in those areas.” AttorneyAtLawMagazine.com 15ATTORNEY AT LAW MAGAZINE · LOS ANGELES · VOL. 6 NO. 2 16George’s extensive travels around the world have served as a poignant reminder that many victims never receive justice, monetary or otherwise. “Lately I’ve been traveling to a lot of places to further learn about man’s inhumanity to man,” he says. Some of the recent visits: Hiroshima, Ja- pan’s Peace Museum; Vietnam’s Indochina war fields; Cambodia’s sites of Khmer Rouge and killing fields brutality; and Israel’s Jeru- salem, Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum. “As the father of five children, four of them daughters, George says he has a particular desire for representing females.” “Lately I’ve been traveling to a lot of places to further learn about man’s inhumanity to man.” Practice Areas Employment Discrimination Catastrophic Injury Wrongful Death Education Juris Doctor, Pepperdine University School of Law Bachelor’s Degree, West Virginia University Professional Membership California Women’s Law Center, Executive Board Member Western Justice Center, Board Member Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles, Emeritus Member Superior Court, Bench Bar Committee Los Angeles “As a discrimination attorney, those places are particularly impactful,” George says. “They keep me motivated to continue fighting for fairness and equality. You learn so much from history and you hopefully try to make things better for people, es- pecially those who don’t have lives as fortunate as all of us.” George—who was the 2019 recipient of Loyola Law School’s Champion of Justice award for “pro- fessional excellence, expectational proficiency and uncompromising integrity”—says one of his first exposures to discrimination happened when he read the classic legal tale To Kill a Mockingbird. “I thought Atticus Fitch was fabulous, and he gave me a clue about what an attorney can do to re- ally help people,” George says. “I am happy that this is my career. I really enjoy coming to work, meeting and assisting clients, engaging with attorneys, be- ing in jury trials. I love my job. “People call me when they need a hand and I feel very fortunate I can lead them through the legal system,” he adds. “I passionately believe in our U.S. jury system and I’m so honored to be a part of it.” And even though his travels around the world have shown him some of the worst qualities in hu- manity, he hasn’t lost his faith that the positive al- ways prevails. “Everywhere you go,” George says, “you con- stantly find out that people are innately good.” At a Glance Law Offices of Victor George 20355 Hawthorne Blvd. Torrance, CA 90503 (310) 698-0990 www.vgeorgelaw.com Honors Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles, Trial Lawyer of the Year, 2005 Loyola Law School, Champion of Justice Recipient, 2019 Law Dragon Top 500 Leading Lawyers in the Nation Family Wife: Stephanie Culver, M.D. (Ob/Gyn) Children: Andre, Victoria, Esabella, Sophia and Madeleine Hobbies Travel, Enjoying the Outdoors And Beach Tennis Bicycling Attending the Children’s Sporting Events and Theatre Performances Favorite Quote The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. ATTORNEY AT LAW MAGAZINE · LOS ANGELES · VOL. 6 NO. 2 18Does your firm stand out from the crowd? SUBMIT YOUR FIRM FOR NEXT ISSUE’S LAW FIRM OF THE MONTH SUBMIT NOMINATIONS AT WWW.ATTORNEYATLAWMAGAZINE.COM/NOMINATE/Next >