Summer 2015

CMCP Diversity Matters
Summer 2015 Newsletter
MINORITY
Summer 2015
1

CMCP Diversity Matters
2015 eNewsletter Committee Members
Tambry L. Bradford
(Co-Chair)
Special Counsel
Pepper Hamilton LLP
Cassandra Mougin
(Co-Chair)
Shareholder
Pettit Kohn Ingrassia & Lutz, PC
Michael Chung
Of Counsel
Willenken Wilson Loh &
Delgado LLP
Karen A. Henry
Counsel
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Noah Perez-Silverman
Associate
Caldwell Leslie & Proctor, PC
Kelly Perigoe
Associate
Caldwell Leslie & Proctor, PC
David Shimkin
Member
Cozen O’Connor
Jonathan M. Turner
Partner
Epstein Turner Weiss
1

Summer 2015 Newsletter
Table of Contents
page 3
page 4
page 7
Meet Your New CMCP Board Members –
Attorney Spotlights Series Spotlight:
Camilo Echavarria
A Tale Of Two Public Entities:
What Employers Can Learn About
The Feha Accommodation Process
Business Development Series:
Is it Time for a Mid-Year Correction?
page 9
page 11
page 14
page 15
125 Years Later, CA Supreme Court Grants
Membership Posthumously to First
Chinese-American Lawyer
Women@the Table Panel 1:
“Hit or Miss? Women Lawyers’ Litigation and Trial
Strategies”
Trend to Limit ADA and FEHA Definitions of
Disability Attributed to Behavioral Disorders
Affecting Work Relations?
Diversity Calendar
Mark Your Calendars for Upcoming Diversity Events
2

MEET YOUR NEW CMCP BOARD MEMBERS
CMCP Diversity Matters
ATTORNEY
SPOTLIGHT ON
CAMILO ECHAVARRIA – Partner, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
By: Karen A. Henry, Counsel, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
In this short interview, CMCP eNewsletter Committee Member Karen A. Henry of Davis Wright
Tremaine, introduces the CMCP membership to one of the new members of CMCP’s Board of
Directors: Camilo Echavarria, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.
This video will open a new webpage.
Karen Henry is an attorney in Davis Wright Tremaine LLP’s Los Angeles office. She maintains a broad and diverse practice, focusing
primarily on media, IP, and entertainment law. For more info about Karen, click here.
3

Summer 2015 Newsletter
A Tale Of Two Public Entities:
What Employers Can Learn About
The FEHA Accommodation Process
By: Andrew I. Chung, Associate, Pettit Kohn Ingrassia & Lutz, PC
Finding the right accommodation
for a disabled employee can
be a difficult task under the
Fair Employment and Housing
Act (“FEHA”). An employer’s
accommodation obligations are
broad, and litigation can ensue
when there is a breakdown in the
accommodation process. Two
recent appellate decisions involving
public entities, however, provide
employers with guidance on how
to better approach an employee’s
request for accommodation.
Where The Employer’s
Accommodation Efforts
Fall Short
In Swanson v. Morongo Unified
School District (2014) 232 Cal.
App.4 th 954, as modified on
denial of reh’g (Dec. 23, 2014),
a teacher sued a public school
district (“District”) alleging that
her employment contract was
not renewed because of her
breast cancer and related medical
leaves.
After the Plaintiff-teacher was
diagnosed with cancer, the
District afforded her a prolonged
leave of absence to care for her
condition. Upon her return from
leave, the District and Plaintiff
discussed an appropriate
classroom assignment. The
District recommended an
assignment to a 5 th grade class,
while Plaintiff requested to teach
the 2 nd grade because she had
taught that level before and was
familiar with the curriculum.
4

5
CMCP Diversity Matters
Plaintiff expressed that she
was concerned that her cancer
treatments would inhibit her
ability to prepare and plan
lessons for a new assignment.
The District ultimately assigned
Plaintiff to teach kindergarten.
After another short medical leave
and return to work, the District
evaluated Plaintiff’s in-class
instruction as part of its annual
review of all teachers. Plaintiff’s
performance was rated poor, and
her contract was not renewed
because of the unfavorable
evaluation.
Plaintiff sued the District under
FEHA, alleging that the District
discriminated against and failed
to accommodate her. Relying on
Raine v. City of Burbank (2006) 135
Cal.App.4 th 1215, 1222–1223, the
trial court held that the District’s
accommodation efforts were
sufficient because the District had
no obligation to choose either the
best accommodation for Plaintiff
or the specific accommodation
that she sought. The Fourth
Appellate District disagreed,
however, holding that the law
imposes an affirmative duty on
employers to reassign a disabled
employee to an already funded,
vacant position at the same
level. Swanson, supra, 232 Cal.
App.4th at p. 970 (citing Spitzer
v. The Good Guys, Inc. (2000)
80 Cal.App.4 th 1376, 1389). The
Court found it significant that the
2nd grade position that Plaintiff
requested was vacant at the time
of her request. Moreover, the
Court held that the District should
have afforded Plaintiff preferential
consideration when considering
her request to teach the 2nd
grade. Swanson, supra, 232 Cal.
App.4 th at p. 970 (citing Jensen v.
Wells Fargo Bank (2000) 85 Cal.
App.4th 245, 265).
Where The Employer’s
Accommodation Efforts
Are Sufficient
Contrary to the result in Swanson,
the Second Appellate District
affirmed summary judgment
for an employer in Nealy v. City
of Santa Monica (2015) 234 Cal.
App.4 th 359. Similar to Swanson,
Nealy involved a lawsuit where
the plaintiff alleged disability
discrimination and failure to
accommodate.
The employee in Nealy worked for
the City of Santa Monica (“City”) as
a solid waste equipment operator.
After he endured an on-the-job
knee injury, Plaintiff underwent
multiple periods of disability
and leaves of absence. Initially,
the City reassigned Plaintiff to
a groundskeeper position as an
accommodation. After a second
industrial injury, Plaintiff was
returned to work on “light duty,”
which restricted him from several
physical activities, including
kneeling and heavy lifting.
Pursuant to his restrictions,
Plaintiff requested that the City
return him to the solid waste
equipment operator position
with modifications to the job.
The City conducted several
meetings with Plaintiff and hired
a disability consulting firm to
determine whether Plaintiff could
perform the essential functions
of that role. The City concluded
that Plaintiff’s restrictions
precluded him from performing
that job without eliminating
certain essential functions. After
initially[?] declining to do so
[slightly unclear as to what the
City declined to do], the City
considered reassigning Plaintiff to
a lateral, vacant position. Plaintiff
could not be reassigned, however,
because he was not qualified
for the lone lateral position that
was available. Unable to find
an accommodation for Plaintiff,
the District effectively separated
Plaintiff’s employment.
The Second Appellate District
concluded that the City’s actions
were lawful. Notably, the Court
rejected Plaintiff’s argument that
the City could have restructured
his former position so that he
would not have to kneel or lift
heavy objects. Because kneeling
and lifting heavy objects were
essential functions of the job,
the City was not required to
eliminate those functions as an
accommodation. Id. at p. 359. As
to reassignment, the Court held
that the law does not require
employers to provide an indefinite
leave of absence to await possible
future vacancies. Id.

Summer 2015 Newsletter
The Takeaway From
Swanson And Nealy
The employers in Swanson
and Nealy both denied the
accommodation sought by the
employee, but the respective
courts notably reached
opposite conclusions on their
accommodation efforts. Although
the District’s accommodation
efforts in Swanson were not
necessarily poor, summary
judgment could not be affirmed
in that case because the District
did not have a viable reason for
denying the teacher’s request
for a 2nd grade assignment.
That assignment was vacant and
available, and the District did not
give sufficient consideration to the
teacher’s medical concerns.
By contrast, the City in Nealy had
a well-reasoned basis to deny
its employee’s reassignment
request. The City hired a disability
consulting firm to evaluate
the employee’s essential job
functions, communicated with the
employee on multiple occasions
to discuss the employee’s
restrictions, and explored all
lateral vacancies before deciding
that the employee was not
qualified for any vacant positions.
Employers who are contemplating
an accommodation request
should be mindful of the results
in Swanson and Nealy. At a
minimum, employers should (1)
carefully evaluate the employee’s
essential job functions in view
of any work restrictions, and (2)
communicate with the employee
about the accommodations
that are being explored and the
alternatives available to the
employee. It is important that
employers afford their employees
an opportunity to actively
participate in the accommodation
process. Employers should
also consult with a medical
professional or a disability
consultant where feasible to
find accommodations that are
compatible with an employee’s
work restrictions and limitations.
Although a perfect
accommodation may not exist,
closely mirroring the employer’s
actions in Nealy will put
employers in a better position to
accommodate employees with
disabilities and avoid litigation.
Andrew I. Chung is an Associate at Pettit Kohn Ingrassia & Lutz PC in Los Angeles.
He can be reached at achung@pettitkohn.com or (310)-417-1147. For more info about Andrew, click here.
6

CMCP Diversity Matters
Business Development Series:
Is it Time for a
Mid-Year Correction?
By: Martha Sullivan, Principal, Thornton Marketing
Somehow, the year is half over. Have you completed
50% of the business development tasks you planned
on for 2015? Or have you been focused only on
billable hours? If you are like most of my coaching
clients, you probably have a long list of calls you
meant to make, meetings you need to schedule and
events you should attend. Some people might call
this a “time management” issue, but more often, I find
that my clients don’t take action because they don’t
feel confident about the outcome. They compare
themselves to the rainmakers they know and are sure
that other lawyers have biz dev figured out, or that the
process is simply easier for others. I can assure you
that it’s not easier. The difference is that rainmakers
have a biz dev plan in place, and they are committed
to taking action. If you read my last CMCP blawg, you
may remember that one of the most effective ways to
increase your confidence is by taking action.
In April, when I wrote about the book “The Confidence
Code,” I didn’t realize that it would be an important
part of the conversation at the third annual “From
Having it All to Leaning In” event sponsored by the
Santa Clara County Bar Association on June 10. The
attendees were encouraged to read the book before
the event. I was a co-presenter for the rainmaking
session with Heidi Keefe, a partner at Cooley.
Heidi and I discussed ways to engage in business
development and she shared stories of her own
success at landing clients because she maintained
long-term relationships with a large network of
contacts. She also talked about the importance of
being herself and she encouraged the attendees to be
authentic. In the words of Oscar Wilde, “Be yourself.
Everyone else is already taken.”
Taking Action
As I said above, confidence is about taking action.
By a fortuitous coincidence, biz dev is also about
taking action. More accurately, it’s about taking many
actions every year over the course of your career and
being diligent about following up with your contacts.
Perhaps you can keep these tasks in your head, but
7

Summer 2015 Newsletter
my coaching clients have found that it’s easier and
more effective to capture them in a written marketing
plan. (Yes, I know I keep saying that you have to have a
plan. Trust me. I’m right about this).
You might be thinking that the summer months are
a bad time for biz dev because so many people are
on vacation. Let’s be realistic. Not everyone will be
taking vacation, and those that do will probably only
be gone for two weeks. Even if you can’t schedule
all the meetings you want to have right now, you
can start setting up your September calendar, and
start planning the rest of this year. It is not too soon
to add the CMCP Annual Business Conference to
your calendar (Oct. 22-23 in Los Angeles). If you have
attended previous conferences, you already know that
this is one of the best networking opportunities you
will have all year.
Committing to Your Plan
If you are ready to get started and need a framework
for your biz dev plans, email me (marthasullivan@
earthlink.net) and I will send you the Personal
Marketing Plan template that my coaching clients use.
Some sections may not be relevant to your practice.
Focus on the ones that make sense for you, and
commit to completing at least one biz dev task every
week. If you develop a weekly habit, you will quickly
realize that every month of the year is a great time to
be engaged in your biz dev practice. And a year from
now, you will be far more confident about your ability
to generate business.
Martha Sullivan is Principal of Thornton Marketing in San Rafael, CA.
marthasullivan@earthlink.net; 415.472.7126; www.thorntonmarketing.com
8

CMCP Diversity Matters
125 Years Later, CA Supreme Court
Grants Membership Posthumously
to First Chinese-American Lawyer
By: Michael Chung, Of Counsel, Willenken Wilson Loh & Delgado LLP
On March 16, 2015, the California
Supreme Court corrected an
1890 decision that denied Hong
Yen Chang admission to the
California State Bar because
of his Chinese heritage. It took
a team composed of Chang’s
descendants and law students
from the University of California,
Davis School of Law to finally get
the Court to admit Chang to the
Bar. In a nine-page opinion the
Court noted: “Even if we cannot
undo history, we can acknowledge
it and, in so doing, accord a full
measure of recognition to Chang’s
pathbreaking efforts to become
the first lawyer of Chinese descent
in the United States.” In re Hong
Yen Chang on Admission, California
Supreme Court Case Number
S223736 at 8.
Chang was born in China and
moved to the U.S. in 1872 as part of
a Chinese government-sponsored
program to teach Chinese youth
about Western culture. He
attended schools on the East
Coast—graduating from Phillips
Academy, Yale University and
Columbia Law School.
When Chang moved to California
in 1890, he had already been
admitted to the New York Bar
two years earlier. In doing so, he
became the country’s first
Chinese-American attorney.
Chang’s journey to gain admission
in New York was not without
difficulties, however. New York’s
highest court first denied Chang
admission because he was not a
citizen, but later admitted him after
a New York judge issued Chang a
certificate of naturalization.
Yet, in spite of this fact, the
California Supreme Court rejected
Chang’s application because it
did not consider Chang a citizen.
It held that the certificate of
naturalization issued in New York
was void because the federal
Chinese Exclusion Act prohibited
courts from issuing certificates
of naturalization to any native of
China and it being conceded that
Chang was a “person of Mongolian
nativity.”
It would not be until March 26,
1923, when You Chung Hong was
admitted to the Bar, that California
would allow Chinese-Americans to
practice law in this state.
9

Summer 2015 Newsletter
Photo: Courtesy of Wikimedia
“A candid reckoning
with a sordid chapter
of our state and
national history.”
In overturning the 1890 decision,
the California Supreme Court
recounted California’s sad but
pivotal role in persuading Congress
to pass the Chinese Exclusion Act
and how racism against Chinese
immigrants formed the foundation
for the California Constitutional
Convention of 1879. The 1879
Constitution denied those with
Chinese ancestry the right to
vote along with any “idiot, insane
person, or person convicted” of
various crimes and directed the
Legislature to discourage Chinese
“immigration by all means within
its power.”
Given this historical background,
the Court concluded that “the
discriminatory exclusion of Chang
from the State Bar of California
was a grievous wrong” and that
Chang had been denied the equal
protection of the laws. Id. at 8.
Although Chang was unable to
practice law in California and
serve the Chinese community
in San Francisco as he originally
planned, he had a successful
career in banking, academics
and diplomacy. Nonetheless,
Chang’s posthumous admission
is bittersweet when considering
the contributions he could have
made to the legal community in
California had he been afforded
the privileges he had duly earned.
Michael Chung, Of Counsel, Willenken Wilson Loh & Delgado LLP.
He can be reach at michaelchung@willenken.com or 213-694-3697.
10

CMCP Diversity Matters
Women@theTable Panel:
“Hit or Miss? Women Lawyers’ Litigation
and Trial Strategies”
Featuring Hon. Holly Fujie, Hon. Rex Heeseman,
and Hon. Teresa Sanchez-Gordon
By: Jennifer Weidinger, Associate, Pettit Kohn Ingrassia & Lutz, PC
On May 6, 2015, CMCP member law firm Lim, Ruger
& Kim LLP hosted the first of a three-panel seriesl
intended to explore women in the law. The panel
discussed effective advocacy and strategies to curtail
bias in the courtroom. The moderators asked speakers
to elaborate on personal experiences, provide
insights, suggestions, and approaches for women
lawyers, and address questions from the audience.
The first panel featured Hon. Holly Fujie, Hon. Rex
Heeseman (Ret.), and Hon. Teresa Sanchez-Gordon,
and was moderated by Lisa Yang and George Busu of
Lim, Ruger & Kim LLP.
Women in litigation and trial.
Hon. Heeseman noted that in 1971 the average law
school classroom was comprised of approximately
7% women. Now in 2015, that number is almost up
to 50%. What a difference 45 years makes and the
judges acknowledged the accomplishments women
have made in litigation and trial practice during that
time, from increasing numbers of women partners
and trial lawyers, to the number of women appointed
to the bench. Women have successfully earned their
positions at the “table,” yet biases, whether obvious or
not, still exist in the profession.
Have judges observed gender inequities in
the courtroom?
All three panelists concurred most lawyers (both
male and female) attempt to present their most
professional self to the judges in open court. However
there are instances where tactics range from mere
puffery to intimidation and even bullying. The best
remedy in these situations is to rise above the fray,
and regardless of experience, age, or gender, focus in
on the potency of the factual or legal argument. Hon.
Fujie emphasized the importance of using one’s own
strengths to overcome intimidation tactics. A lawyer
may be soft spoken, yet present a cogent analysis of
a case that will leave her opponent without a counter
argument. She need not even raise her voice to
become the clear victor in the eyes of the court.
11

Summer 2015 Newsletter
would not let this intimidate them, it can derail even
an experienced attorney. Intimidation tactics are
best countered by attorneys who direct their energy
to the legal arguments or cross examination, those
who swiftly redirect attention to their own points, and
seamlessly recapture the interest of the judge and jury.
The judges remarked that some male attorneys tend
to believe they are more prepared than they actually
are at trial, while female attorneys will believe they
are not prepared enough, thus downplaying their
strengths. The judges have observed women defer
to male attorneys without basis during argument,
playing into that gender stereotype. This is ineffective
argument and a result of lack of confidence rather
than lack of skill. All three panelists encouraged
women to thoroughly prepare and be confident in
that preparation during any presentation, whether it
be a motion or examination at trial.
Hon. Heeseman recognized there is still evidence
of the macho attitude exhibited by some male
attorneys in the courtroom. It is often a cover for lack
of preparedness, and though many women attorneys
All three judges noted that their clerks often told them
of comments made or looks exchanged, before the
judge had taken the bench. A lack of respect between
counsel (outside the judge’s presence) does not go
unnoticed in the courtroom, and there is a clear line
between advocacy and disrespectfulness. Credibility
is a fundamental trait in any successful attorney, male
or female, therefore the judges recommend selfawareness
at all times during practice. Career goals are
seldom enhanced by disrespect, and almost always
propelled by a mutual respect between counsel.
Have the judges themselves experienced
gender bias in their own careers?
Hon. Fujie recalled an incident as a presiding judge
where a male attorney, amidst arguing a motion,
referred to her as “honey.” The reference was quickly
withdrawn by the attorney, but a germane example
Continued on next page…
12

CMCP Diversity Matters
of gender bias towards even a presiding judge. Such
a casual term would likely never be applied to a male
judge. She noted that her career has been fueled by
a passion to succeed and to encourage diversity in
the legal profession, and she recalled clearly when
one individual told her she would never become a
judge. After her time as a partner of her law firm, then
as the first Asian American to serve as the president
of the State Bar of California, and now as a presiding
judge, appointed in 2011, Hon. Fujie encouraged
young women lawyers to continue to succeed, and
to continue to broaden diversity as women and
minorities in the profession. After all, Hon. Fujie noted,
winning on your merit is the best revenge.
What suggestions do the judges have for
women in the courtroom?
Be prepared. This was the prominent
recommendation provided by all three panelists.
Hon. Sanchez-Gordon noted that regardless of age,
experience, gender, whether the lawyer was from
a big firm or small firm, at the end of the day, the
attorney most prepared wins the argument. This
is the overriding principle and key for women and
minority lawyers, who often feel disadvantaged from
the start. True preparation includes a mastery of
the facts of the case, any applicable case law, and
a mastery of your opponents’ potential arguments.
Even if an attorney appears on behalf of someone
else from their firm, they should have taken the time
to familiarize themselves with the case to be able to
speak meaningfully and anticipate some questioning
from the judge. She recommended women lawyers
maintain their professionalism in the courtroom,
from attire to demeanor, as it makes an impact on the
judges, who may be meeting you for the first time.
Hon. Reeseman suggested “practice makes perfect”
and that lawyers can and should be practicing their
oral arguments (for a motion or for trial) many times
prior to the final hearing. Practice in front of other
associates, in front of partners, and take criticisms with
improvement in mind. Take positives and negatives
and apply them to your own practice and behavior.
Also, observing other lawyers is an excellent way to
hone your own style, and to stay current.
Maintain credibility. All agreed that establishing
credibility in the courtroom is essential. For example
Hon. Fujie recalled an attorney who claimed a specific
case supported his argument, when in actuality it
did not. This completely destroyed his credibility and
created distrust. All lawyers, regardless of gender,
should value their own credibility and aim to present
a reasonable position to the court. The panel agreed
that exaggerating the record occurs all too often in
their courtrooms, and is not well taken. Exhibiting
reasonableness in the face of disagreement allows
the court to place trust in that attorney, and carries
forward to future cases. Whether it means opening up
the conversation to compromise, or standing firm in a
position, a lawyer’s ability to gauge the argument and
context, and adapt accordingly, flows to their ultimate
credibility with the judges.
Upcoming panels include: “The Woman Factor- How
Women at the Top Impact Organizations” (June 25,
2015); and “Gender Stereotypes at the Bargaining
Table” (August 20, 2015).
Jennifer Weidinger is an Associate at Pettit Kohn Ingrassia & Lutz’s Los Angeles office. Ms. Weidinger’s practice focuses primarily on
premises liability and employment litigation. For more info about Jennifer, click here.
13

Summer 2015 Newsletter
Trend to Limit ADA and FEHA Definitions of
Disability Attributed to Behavioral Disorders
Affecting Work Relations?
By: Jonathan M. Turner, Partner, Epstein Turner Weiss
Could there be a trend starting
among the courts to put restraints
on the reach of the disability
discrimination laws when it comes
to mental impairments affecting
an employee’s ability to get along
with others in the workplace?
Maybe. In December of this past
year, the Ninth Circuit put the
brakes on its own precedent by
reversing a jury finding that the
employer violated the Americans
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) when it
terminated an employee because
of behavioral issues attributed to
a mental disorder. In Weaving v.
City of Hillsboro, 763 F.3d 1106 (9 th
Cir. 2014), an employee diagnosed
with attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (“ADHD”) was terminated
because of “recurring interpersonal
problems” that caused workplace
conflicts with the employee’s
supervisors, co-workers and
subordinates. Although the
employee’s disruptive behavior
was allegedly attributable to his
ADHD, the Ninth Circuit held that
his termination did not violate
the ADA because the employee’s
mental disorder, while making it
more difficult for him to “get along”
with others, “d[id] not amount
to a substantial impairment of
his ability to interact with others
within the meaning of the ADA.” Id.,
at 1113.
On May 26, 2015, a California court
addressed a similar issue arising
out of an order granting summary
judgment in favor an employer. In
Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Medical
Foundation, __ Cal. Rptr.3d __, No.
C073677, 2015 WL 3451590 (Cal. Ct.
App. May 26, 2015), an employee
who was diagnosed with a mental
disorder (adjustment disorder
with anxiety) alleged that because
of his disorder he could not work
for a particular supervisor who
reportedly was abusive to the
employee. Although the employee
argued that under the California
Fair Employment and Housing
Act (“FEHA”) he was entitled to a
reasonable accommodation for
his disorder, the California Court
of Appeal was not persuaded.
The court held that the inability
to work for a particular supervisor
“because of anxiety and stress
related to that supervisor’s
standard oversight of the
employee’s job performance d[id]
not constitute a mental disability
under FEHA.” Id., at *3.
In both of these cases, the court
concluded that the mental
disorder in question did not satisfy
the definition of a disability under
the governing law because the
disorder did not rise to a level so
as to “limit a major life activity.”
The major life activity at issue
in Weaving was the ability to
engage in social interaction, while
the major life activity at issue in
Higgins-Williams was the ability
to work. Although a different
legal analysis was applied in
each case when denying relief to
the employee, it would appear
from these cases that the state
and federal courts are starting to
recognize limits to the protections
afforded under the disability
discrimination laws when the
alleged disability amounts to a
behavioral disorder that impairs
the plaintiff’s ability to relate to
others in the workplace.
Jonathan M. Turner is founding partner at Epstein Turner Weiss in Los Angeles. Jonathan represents management in all aspects of
labor and employment law. For more information about Jonathan, click here
14

CMCP Diversity Matters
Diversity Calendar
July 10, 2015
6:00pm - 2:00am (next day 7/11/2015)
Professionals Mixer Benefiting Nepal
Asian Pacific American Bar Association
Los Angeles
Mad Ave - LA
Read more
July 15, 2015
6:00pm
5th Anniversary Party
Orange County Lavender Bar
Association
The Sky Garden at the Michelson Building
- Irvine
Read more
July 18-23, 2015
Saturday-Wednesday
90th Annual Conventions and Exhibits
California Association of Black Lawyers
The Westin Bonaventure Hotel - LA
Read more
July 23, 2015
5:30pm - 7:30pm
ACBA Summer Reception 2015
Alameda County Bar Association
Bocanova - Oakland
Read more
July 23, 2015
6:00pm - 8:00pm
BHBA Summer Mixer at Trader Vic’s
Lounge
Beverly Hills Bar Association
The Beverly Hilton - Beverly Hills
Read more
July 27, 2015
10:00am - 5:00pm
Annual SFLRLA Summer Picnic!
San Francisco La Raza Lawyers
Association
Ceja Winery - Napa
Read more
July 29, 2015
5:30pm - 7:30pm
In-House Counsel Diversity Awards
Reception
Bar Association of San Francisco
Schiff Hardin - SF
Read more
July 30, 2015
5:30pm - 8:30pm
Judges’ Dinner
Queen’s Bench Bar Association
Marines Memorials Club - SF
Read more
September 12, 2015
6:00pm
Hollywood Bowl - B-52s & Psych Furs
Concert - Space is Limited
Lesbian & Gay Lawyers Association of
L.A.
Hollywood Bowl - LA
Read more
September 15, 2015
5:00pm - 9:00pm
The 2015 OCWLA Gala
Orange County Women Lawyers
Association
Irvine Marriott - Irvine
Read more
September 16-19, 2015
Wednesday-Saturday
NAMWOLF 2015 Annual Meeting
The National Association of Minority &
Women Owned Law Firms
Loews Hollywood Hotel - LA
Read more
September 24, 2015
4:30pm - 6:10pm
Filipino Community Night at Petco
Park (Filipino Inspired Pre-Game
Entertainment)
Filipino American Lawyers of San Diego
Petco Park - San Diego
Read more
15

CMCP Diversity Matters
Summer 2015 Newsletter
Summer 2015 Newsletter
MINORITY
Summer 2015
© Copyright 2015
California Minority Counsel Program
465 California Street, Suite 635
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: 415-782-8990
Email: newsletter@cmcp.org
Web: http://www.cmcp.org
16