| Welcome to our Winter 2025 Newsletter where we share a little about what we have been up to as well as articles on issues and topics we think our community would be interested in. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome to the Fall 2025 edition of Salisian LLP's Newsletter! Complete with firm news, details on our latest new arrivals and timely, informative analysis exploring some of the more pressing legal issues today, our goal is to keep you apprised of what we are doing as a firm while sharing helpful and relevant insights. Should you want to be removed from our distribution list, please just send a request to info@salisianllp.com and we will honor that request moving forward. Otherwise, we hope you will enjoy our newsletter and we look forward to your feedback!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Firm News
- We have been busy hiring in recent months as we continue to thoughtfully grow and better serve client demand. Most recently, we welcomed new paralegals Alejandra Cornejo, Karina Arita, and Rayleen Silva and receptionist Gwendolyn Whiting.
- Recently, we successfully defeated an appeal of a trial court's directed verdict in our client's favor. We brought the original lawsuit to collect significant funds due on a finance lease which had been in litigation for years, so with the judgment affirmed, our client is now closer to finally achieving justice in this matter.
- On June 4, 2025, the firm celebrated its 15th Anniversary at the beautiful Sunset Deck of BMO Stadium.
- We have continued our ongoing commitment to growing our firm culture with our social events. So far this year, we took in an LA Kings game, flexed our creative side with a pottery making class, and celebrated birthdays and anniversaries.
- As part of the firm's rebrand to Salisian LLP, we have been steadily transitioning our website, email domains, and marketing materials. We hope to complete the transition over the next few weeks and are excited to use this as a launch pad for future growth.
|
|
In the Spotlight: The Same Six Questions with Associate Gabriela Perez
 Gabriela Perez joined our firm as an associate in 2024. Since many of you have already had the opportunity to work with her, or may get the opportunity soon, we thought we'd provide a primer on what makes her tick, both professionally and personally, by asking her the same six questions we always ask our new arrivals.
Welcome to the firm, Gabriela. Let's start at the beginning - what made you want to be an attorney?
I knew I wanted to be an attorney as early as elementary school. Growing up in Southern California, in the border cities of Calexico and Mexicali where summers reach 115–127 degrees, I saw the height of luxury as working indoors, in the cool AC, with a professional office. As I pursued my education, I joined mock trial, interned at legal nonprofits, and worked at a large firm. Along the way, mentors and professors encouraged me and showed me the value of becoming an advocate. These experiences confirmed a decision I had set my mind on from a young age.
And what drew you to Salisian LLP at this stage in your career?
Salisian LLP has a strong reputation in the legal community for providing excellent training and mentorship to its associate attorneys. I was drawn to the firm's collaborative culture, where young attorneys are given the opportunity to take on meaningful responsibility early in their careers while receiving guidance from experienced partners. In addition, Salisian LLP represents a diverse array of clients across a wide range of industries. That breadth of experience allows me to develop versatile skills while making a real impact for clients at different stages of growth.
What do you love most about the practice of law?
One of the most rewarding aspects of my career has been the opportunity to help others navigate their legal challenges. Recently, I had the privilege of second-chairing a trial on behalf of a firm client who had been defrauded. Through strategic prosecution and careful case management, we were able to secure a successful verdict on his behalf. I have also assisted many clients in reaching favorable settlements. In today's highly litigious environment — where cases can often be delayed by disputes or procedural hurdles — achieving timely and effective resolutions has been especially gratifying. Having the chance to obtain such outcomes within my first three years of practice has been both meaningful and motivating.
What advice have you received in your career that made the most meaningful impact?
The best advice I received was to view being underestimated as an opportunity. If you work twice as hard, not only do you prove them wrong, but you also become twice as good in the process. Ever since, I have viewed any challenge as an opportunity to become a more capable attorney.
Who are your role models?
My greatest role model is my mother. She is a physician and entrepreneur in my hometown of Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico, where she owns and operates several businesses, including her private medical practice. During the COVID-19 pandemic, she not only safeguarded the wellbeing of her employees and sustained her businesses but also dedicated herself to saving countless lives. From her, I learned the importance of serving one's community, the value of education, and the rewards of hard work.
What do you like to do in your free time?
I love to cook, attend art exhibits, watch movies, support the local theater, and listen to live music. I am a member of the Los Angeles Museum of Modern Art and the Natural History Museums. Whenever I have the opportunity to travel, whether in the States or abroad, my goals are always to try the local dishes and attend local art museums.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Greater Depth
Below, please enjoy three articles drafted by our thoughtful and talented associates, on some of the key issues they've noted in recent months and their analysis on how best to approach them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Heavyweight Dispute Concerning Private Multiple Listing Services Arises After the NAR Settlement
By Marius Mateescu, Associate
|
|
|
As explained in a prior newsletter, the multiple billion-dollar cases filed across the country after the Missouri federal jury in Burnett v. National Association of Realtors issued a $1.8 billion verdict against the National Association of Realtors ("NAR") and its members for violating antitrust laws led to a settlement between the NAR, various home buyers, and NAR-affiliated brokerages, in which the NAR has agreed to pay $418,000,000 over three years.
The central issue in these matters was whether the rules promulgated by the NAR and its members' agreement to abide by them unfairly restrained trade in the residential real estate industry. At issue is a requirement that all NAR members agree that real property purchase contracts contain a unilateral offer to a NAR-affiliated buyer’s broker for a commission amounting to a percentage of the property's sales price, in exchange for access to multiple listing services. These services advertise various properties in geographic areas throughout the United States to NAR members representing buyers and sellers. Plaintiffs alleged NAR's practice of mandating use of the databases to make offers of commission to buyer's brokers was an unlawful conspiracy to restrain trade because it artificially raised home prices.
The settlement agreement imposed "practice changes" that were sweeping. These included (1) elimination of the unilateral offer of compensation to buyer representatives; (2) elimination of requirements conditioning participation in a NAR-affiliated multiple listing service on offering or accepting unilateral offers of compensation to buyer representatives; and (3) an agreement to not create or support a "non-MLS mechanism" for listing brokers to make unilateral offers of compensation to buyer representatives, subject to certain conditions.
Because the practice changes did not "prevent offers of compensation to buyer brokers or other buyer representatives off of the multiple listing service," real estate players began making such offers through private listing services. Thus, although the $418 million dollar settlement grabbed headlines, its more lasting impact appears to be structural.
By eliminating the once-standard practice of offering buyer-agent commissions via MLS listing, the settlement has dismantled a longstanding framework. In its place, there is a rapid emergence of alternative listing models, including private and off-MLS listings and services that are reshaping how real estate inventory is shared and sold.
For players in the space, this shift presents both opportunities and legal risks. Many brokerages are experimenting with tiered listing strategies that begin with exclusive internal marketing before pushing listings to the broader market. These listing models — sometimes branded as "private exclusives" or "coming soon" listings — appear to allow agents to come to an agreement concerning their commissions in line with prior practices without running afoul of the NAR settlement agreement. While a logical response to industry upheaval, new legal disputes have arisen from these practices.
Front and center in this new landscape is the dispute between Compass and Zillow. Compass recently filed a federal lawsuit accusing Zillow of engaging in anti-competitive conduct by adopting policies forbidding listings that have been marketed elsewhere before appearing on Zillow. Compass alleges that this rule — known as Zillow's "Listing Access Standards" — effectively blocks Compass agents from fully leveraging their private exclusive strategy.
Compass contends this policy amounts to anti-competitive exclusionary conduct in violation of antitrust laws. Compass seeks to enjoin Zillow from applying this policy and argues that Zillow's conduct harms competition and limits buyers from being exposed to all available real estate inventory to their detriment.
Zillow disagrees. It sees Compass' listing strategy as a scheme disadvantaging normal consumers in favor of the interests of Compass' agents (and more specifically, commission payments), reducing transparency in the market in the process. Zillow believes its policy actually furthers competition because it believes public listings without delay serve consumer interests better than private listings distorting access to all available real estate inventory. By discouraging private listings, Zillow says, consumers have more choice.
This dispute has wide ranging implications for the practice of private listing services. It functions as a test case for the future of listing control in the post-NAR settlement era.
At stake are the rights of brokerages to control listing visibility as a marketing tool and the rights of online platforms to exclude properties that are marketed in private arrangements. Online platforms are now central to how buyers access and analyze the real estate market. Whether they can dictate listing protocols of brokerages in the name of transparency is at issue. This, in turn, will shape the future dominant players in the real estate sector. One can imagine a world where the platforms also function as brokerages and displace traditional brokerages due to their ability to dictate what buyers see.
The rise of private listing platforms also raises other questions. From an antitrust perspective, large firms creating private listing environments raise questions about whether the market is being stifled due to access restrictions. A platform that limits who sees what listings and when could invite scrutiny from regulators. And brokerages who push private listings may face questions about their fiduciary duties, where sellers may argue that the limited exposure from the private listing reduces buyer competition or sales price in the name of ensuring that past commission schemes are adhered to. There is also a question of whether these private listing arrangements could lead to concerns of unfair housing practices if they result in a disproportionate adverse impact on a protected group of people.
For brokerages and those affiliated with brokerages as well as online platforms, the message is clear: innovation in listing models is accelerating in the face of the NAR settlement, but the legal boundaries are unclear. Real estate industry players should take a hard look at current agreements, disclosure practices, platform policies, listing practices, and competitive strategies to ensure that liability is not being created by them. Otherwise, a Compass v. Zillow showdown may occur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate Transparency Deferred: Recent Developments and Future Considerations
By Brian Zhang, Associate
|
|
|
American businesses are certainly no stranger to navigating a sophisticated regulatory landscape. Publicly traded companies and companies of a certain size threshold, for example, have long been subject to substantial federal regulatory requirements. However, recent legislative developments have sought to impose stringent corporate regulations across a broad swath of businesses, particularly regarding disclosure of beneficial owners. These developments represent a significant impact on the typically less-regulated realm of smaller business entities such as limited liability companies.
The federal Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), enacted in January 2021 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, emerged from growing concerns about the misuse of anonymous shell companies for money laundering, corruption, tax evasion, financing of terrorism, and other illicit activities. The CTA culminated from years of calls for reform and attempts at passing such legislation, as the U.S. trailed other developed nations in requiring disclosure of beneficial ownership information to combat shell company exploitation.
The CTA required companies, both domestic and foreign, to report the name, date of birth, address, and unique identifying number from an acceptable identification document of each of their beneficial owners — those who own or control at least 25% of the entity or exercise substantial control — to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The reporting deadline was January 1, 2025 for existing companies, or 90 days after formation for companies formed after January 1, 2024. FinCEN could then share that information with other entities, including government agencies, law enforcement agencies, and financial institutions. Failure to report would subject a business to substantial fines.
Unsurprisingly, this drew opposition from small businesses and privacy advocates as being burdensome and invasive. However, whatever impact the CTA might have had largely remains to be seen, if at all. After legal challenges and extensions of the reporting deadline, in March 2025, FinCEN and the Treasury Department announced that as of March 21, 2025, enforcement of the CTA's beneficial ownership reporting requirements was suspended for U.S. companies and owners, and would be narrowed to foreign companies only (which still had a reporting deadline of April 25, 2025). FinCEN issued an "interim final rule" to this effect on March 26, 2025. This represents a more concrete removal of reporting requirements beyond mere non-enforcement, but it is still subject to change. FinCEN is accepting comments on the interim final rule and intends to finalize the rule this year.
Meanwhile, some states including California attempted to establish their own versions of a beneficial ownership disclosure regime. California's Senate Bill (SB) 1201, introduced in 2024 with a reporting deadline of January 1, 2026, sought to go further than the CTA, most significantly by making the reported beneficial ownership information publicly accessible. The information would be published by the Secretary of State in its online database, similar to existing publication for statements of information. Opponents argued SB 1201 would create duplicative reporting requirements and burdens for small businesses already struggling to implement compliance with the CTA. SB 1201 passed in the state Senate in May 2024, but has stalled in the Assembly with no further activity, but these efforts may be renewed in the future.
The balance between transparency, privacy, and regulatory burden remains an elusive challenge for policymakers and businesses. The momentum for corporate transparency reform seems to have stalled for the time being, but the underlying causes for concern are not going anywhere. Just as all of these on-and-off developments in the area have occurred in only the last few years, the push for reform could resurge at any moment. The shifting and uncertain nature of the corporate transparency landscape merits close monitoring by business owners in the years to come.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The New Normal: Navigating Remote and Hybrid Employment Today
By Gabriela Perez, Associate
|
|
|
In a post-pandemic world, workers and employers alike have had to adapt to changing workforce landscape. This year, there have been various changes in federal and state regulations to guide government and private sectors in navigating in-person, hybrid, and remote work. Below are some tips that may assist your business in navigating current and upcoming policies.
Privacy and Data Protections to Consider in Workplace Surveillance
Recently, California legislators reviewed Assembly Bill ("AB") 1331, which, if enacted, would restrict employers using workplace surveillance tools.1 The requirements went beyond simple notice requirements for employees, or mandating transparency or disclosure. For example, AB 1331 would prohibit employers from monitoring or surveilling workers in employee only or employer designated areas (such as a breakroom) and would provide workers the right to leave behind workplace surveillance tools during off-duty hours. In addition, AB 1331 would subject violating employers to a civil penalty of $500 per employee for each violation. Although this bill has not yet passed, it reflects a trend toward explicit worker-privacy protections that reach home workspaces.
In addition, as artificial intelligence ("AI") becomes increasingly accessible and used in the workplace, California legislators have also enacted privacy protections that employers should look out for. On July 24, 2025, the California Privacy Protection Agency finalized regulations covering automated decision-making technology ("ADMT") used for employment decisions such as screening, performance analytics, and monitoring. If the regulations are approved by the Office of Administrative Law under the Administrative Procedure Act, employers currently using ADMT will have until January 1, 2027 to comply with the notice and disclosure requirements for employees, job applicants, and other affected individuals prior to using ADMT. The notice must include the following non-exhaustive list: the purpose of the ADMT, a description of the technology, and information on the right to opt out.2
Employee Reimbursement
In addition to workplace surveillance and privacy, California Labor Code section 2802 requires employers to reimburse employees for "necessary" business expenses. Necessary business expenses for remote workers includes, but is not limited to:
- Cell phones used for business calls;
- Wi-Fi/Internet connection;
- Gas mileage; and
- Home office costs which could include a computer, monitors, ergonomic keyboards, etc.
To ensure compliance with this section, employers who require remote or hybrid workers to use certain tools while working off-site should prepare guidelines for reimbursements. It is important to note that employers are not required to provide a complete reimbursement of certain services, such as Wi-Fi, and court will enforce a reasonable amount for reimbursement of necessary tools.
Wage and Hour Laws
Lastly, remote and hybrid employees have the same rights to minimum wage as in-person employees. The federal minimum wage in 2025 remains $7.25 and has not increased since 2005. In California the state minimum wage increased to $16.50 an hour, effective January 1, 2025. However, several factors, including the employer's sector, size, and county can affect the minimum wage. For example, effective July 1, 2025, the minimum wage in Los Angeles County is $17.81. If any hybrid or remote workers reside in a different state, the minimum wage rates from that resident state may apply.
Conclusion
As remote and hybrid work continue to shape the modern workplace, California employers must stay ahead of evolving compliance requirements. Legislators are signaling a strong focus on employee privacy and data protections, particularly around surveillance and AI-driven decision tools. At the same time, reimbursement obligations under Labor Code section 2802 and rising minimum wage standards underscore the need for clear, updated workplace policies that apply equally to in-office, hybrid, and fully remote staff.
By proactively auditing expense policies, monitoring pay practices, and preparing for upcoming privacy and AI regulations, businesses can not only reduce legal risk but also foster employee trust in a shifting employment landscape. Staying compliant today will position employers to adapt more smoothly as further regulatory changes take shape in the years ahead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this newsletter is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this newsletter, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the state of California.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright © 2025 Salisian LLP. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
550 South Hope Street, Suite 750, Los Angeles, CA 90071
|
|
|
telephone: (213) 622-9100 | fax: (800) 622-9145 | email: info@salisianllp.com | web: www.salisianlee.com
|
|
|
