CLE
By the
Hour
Takeaways from the à la carte
CLE program.
BENJAMIN B. ALPER,
ESQ.
Alper Legal, PC
alper@howardjwein-
traubpc.com
The Atlanta Bar Association held its annual
CLE by the Hour Program on February 13,
2020 at King & Spalding. This unique CLE
combines many areas of law into an à la
carte format, allowing participants to drop
in and grab the last few hours of credit they
need, while also allowing participants to
stay the whole day and earn seven hours
of credit, including two ethics and two
professionalism hours. CLE by the Hour,
featuring many fascinating speakers across
multiple areas of law, was moderated by
Gene Chapman (Gene Chapman, LLC),
a member of the Atlanta Bar Association’s
CLE Board of Trustees.
The first session of the program featured a
discussion from Jason Wiggam (Wiggam &
Greer, LLC) regarding the ethics rules and
conflicts that can arise when representing
clients in tax matters.
Wiggam took
pleasure in scaring all those present with
current examples of lawyers behaving badly
in tax prosecutions around the country. He
also advised that attorneys now needed to
be extra-vigilant as the IRS’s enforcement
budget has been substantially increased
and over 5,000 new enforcement agents had
been hired by the IRS. Historically, only
22
February/March 2020
0.58% of individuals are audited by the IRS,
but that figure may rise going forward given
the increased focus on tax enforcement at
the IRS. Lastly, Wiggim outlined some of
the new partnership tax rules that may apply
to lawyers and law firms and the recent
change allowing partnerships to designate a
representative for tax purposes.
The second session, which was very well
attended, featured a discussion about
professionalism and personal branding for
lawyers with Lisa Lemke (Legality, LLC)
and Kimberly Lerman (Legality, LLC).
Lemke and Lerman talked us through what
a personal brand is, how to create it, how
to build it, and how to maintain it. They
also discussed how the Lawyer’s Creed and
Aspirational Statement on Professionalism
applies to an attorney’s branding efforts.
This mandates that a lawyer’s advertising
should aspire to be consistent with the
dignity of the justice system and a learned
profession; provide a beneficial service
to the public by providing accurate
information about the availability of legal
services; educate the public about the law
and legal system; provide completely honest
and straightforward information about
the lawyer's qualifications, fees and costs;
and not imply that the client’s legal needs
can be met only through aggressive tactics.
Lemke and Lerman then walked us through
several hypotheticals for how lawyers could
potentially run afoul of these professional
rules with certain advertising or brand-
building efforts.
Next up was a panel discussion about
practicing in Magistrate Court featuring
Lillian Nash Caudle (Magistrate Court
of Fulton County), Cinque Axam (Axam
Roberts Legal Group), and John Hadden
(The Hadden Law Firm, LLC). Hadden and
Caudle are the authors of the most recent
edition of the Georgia Magistrate Court
Handbook and they provided us with a
“crash course” on practicing in Georgia’s
Magistrate Court. They talked us through
the jurisdiction of the Court as well as the
advantages and disadvantages of bringing a
case in Magistrate Court. The advantages
are lower filing fees as well as a much quicker
resolution time for cases. Some of the
disadvantages are that the Civil Practice Act
does not apply, and there is no opportunity
to obtain traditional discovery as you would
get in a State or Superior Court. There is also
no opportunity to obtain injunctive relief or
declaratory judgments.
After lunch, Scott Hilsen (Cox Automotive),
explained the upcoming challenges for
businesses that collect personal identifying
information ("PII") from consumers. While
no general federal regulation currently exists
to address the collection of PII by businesses,
California’s recently enacted California
Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA") is a good
indication of what these types of regulations
are likely to entail. As Hilsen explained, the
definition of PII is so broad that it includes
just about any type of information a business
obtains from a consumer or third-party. The
CCPA applies to companies doing business
in California and either (i) has $25 million
or more in annual gross revenue earned
anywhere; (ii) buys or sells the PII of 50,000
or more California consumers, households,
or devices; or (iii) derives 50% or more of
its annual revenues from selling California
consumers’ PII. This includes hundreds
of Georgia businesses. The CCPA creates
three main rights for California consumers
regarding their PII. Each of these rights
requires affirmative steps to be taken by
companies to put processes in place to
comply with the CCPA. Consumers have
the right to (1) know what PII of theirs a
company has and be given access to it; (2)
have that information deleted at the request
of the consumer; and (3) opt out of having
their PII sold. Using Cox Automotive as
an example, Hilsen helped break down the
difficulties and challenges that this and
future data privacy laws will impose on
companies.
Next, Anuj Desai (Arnall Golden Gregory,
LLP), Bianca Motley Broom (Miles
Mediation & Arbitration), and Alina
Lee (Mailchimp) presented a fascinating
panel discussion on “Acknowledging and
Interrupting Implicit Bias.” This is the second
year in a row that CLE by the Hour has
presented a discussion on this topic, and its