There is no time like the present for individuals to review, revise and/or implement their estate planning strategy. Even if you believe that your estate planning documents are completed and you have a sound estate planning strategy in place, it is prudent for you to thoroughly review your documents to be certain that the plan you think is currently in place is the plan that will actually take effect upon your incapacity or death. When reviewing your estate planning documents, some relevant considerations may include: Will the recent changes to the tax law impact your current estate plan? Is your current estate plan structured in such a way so that it can be administered efficiently to minimize expense or controversy? Do you have a Financial Durable Power of Attorney and a Health Care Proxy/Living Will that expresses your wishes to allow your appointed Agents to make financial and health care decisions in the event of your incapacity? If you own a business, have you implemented business succession planning that will allow the business to continue operating seamlessly after your incapacity or death? Will your retirement account(s) pass to your intended beneficiaries in a tax-efficient manner? Do you have a Will, Trust, or other planning vehicle that will allow your assets to pass to your intended beneficiaries after your death in a tax-efficient manner? Changes to the Tax Law January 1, 2019 saw significant changes to both the Federal Estate and Gift Tax law and the New York State Estate Tax law, some of which include: The increase of the Federal Estate Tax Exemption amount to $11,400,000 per individual The increase of the annual exclusion amount for Federal Gift Tax Purposes to $15,000 per individual The increase of the New York State Basic Exclusion Amount for Estate Tax Purposes to $5,740,000 per individual. If you implemented your estate plan prior to 2019, the increased state and federal estate tax exemption amounts could potentially lead to unintended consequences.  By way of example, assume your estate planning documents were completed in 2001 when the federal and New York State Estate Tax exemption amounts were each $675,000.  Assume further that the estate plan stipulated that the largest amount, if any, that would pass free of federal and state estate tax would pass to your children, with the rest of the estate assets passing to your spouse.  In 2001, the children would have received only $675,000, but in 2019, the children will receive $5,740,000 (the NYS Basic Exclusion Amount).  If your estate in this example is equal to or less than that amount, you currently would have unintentionally disinherited your spouse because your estate plan had not been updated since 2001. This is just one of many unintended consequences that could potentially occur by failing to review and update your estate plan because you believe that the plan that you put in place years ago will still yield the same results today as it would have in years past. In light of the recent changes in the tax law and the increased state and federal estate tax exemption amounts for 2019, it is advisable that you kick off the new year by dusting off and reviewing your estate planning documents to make sure that your planning goals can still be met with the strategy implemented under their current planning documents.  If it can’t, then updating the planning documents is highly recommended! As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us here or call us at 585.258.2800.

Employers who use E-Verify to comply with their I-9 obligations have not had access to the system since December 22, 2018.  Crucially, however, those I-9 obligations do not cease just because the E-Verify system is down.  Thus, employers are advised to carefully examine new employees’ I-9 documents and complete I-9 sections 1 (by first day) and 2 (by third day) now, and then comply with the E-Verify 3-Day Rule as directed by the Division of Homeland Security (DHS) E-Verify website once it is back online. Similarly, employees will need to resolve their tentative non-confirmations (TNCs) pursuant to DHS instructions on how the “eight federal government working days” rule will be extended because of the shutdown.  Employers cannot take any adverse action against employees with pending TNCs, just as they cannot even when the E-Verify system is working. Employers who use E-Verify should thus have a way to keep track of all new I-9s that need to be processed/queries created once the shutdown ends. The shutdown itself has generated so much news coverage that it should not be difficult for employers to know when the shutdown ends, so they can log on to the DHS website and look for instructions on how to proceed. A significant delay at that point would not be a surprise, but it is crucial for employers to have documented that the delay is the government’s, not theirs. In the past, “Government Shutdown” has been a specific dropdown choice when logging in after a shutdown ends. As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us here or call us at 585.258.2800.

Governor Cuomo vetoed the bill we described in our last post that would have added bereavement leave to the list of acceptable reasons to take NY Paid Family Leave.  Cuomo indicated that he generally supports increased bereavement leave but felt that the bill, as written, would lead to an “extreme expansion” of Paid Family Leave.  Cuomo argued the bill would necessitate an increase in employee contributions, and felt the financial burden of increased contributions might be too much for some low-wage and middle-class workers.  Another potential problem area identified is that the bill allowed for bereavement leave any time within 12 months of the qualifying event.  As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us here or call us at 585.258.2800.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) has been in place for many years under the federal Clean Air Act regulating stationary air emission sources. Several northeastern states that already participate in RGGI for power plant and stationary sources are working on an agreement to implement a regional plan to curb carbon emissions in the transportation area. The RGGI program is said to be a model for the transportation cap and trade system that is anticipated to be announced in the next few months. As an overview, New York and eight other northeastern states, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont and Maryland, set a cap for total emissions of carbon dioxide from electrical generation facilities in the region. The states implement the system through their own regulations and an equal share of the regional cap. The RGGI cap declines over the years, aiming to reduce air pollution in the region. In turn, large electrical power plants must hold one tradable emission allowance for each ton of carbon dioxide they emit. The power plants can acquire emission credits through quarterly auctions or by purchasing them from the owners. New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation reports that, since 2005, the amount of carbon dioxide pollution has decreased by more than 45%. In exchange for the purchase of emission allowances, the states spend most of the auction proceeds on consumer programs, particularly energy efficiency, renewable energy development and greenhouse gas reduction. The transportation cap and trade system is likely to be led by Massachusetts and New York, two states that have been at the forefront of RGGI for many years. Governors Baker and Cuomo were both supportive of the concept in their election campaigns in the last year. It has been estimated that almost half of all carbon emissions come from the transportation sector. Under the model being considered, primary suppliers of gas and diesel fuel would be required to purchase carbon allowances at auction, similar to stationary sources under RGGI. As with other major environmental regulatory programs, the concept of cap and trade for vehicles has the potential for significant financial impact. On one hand, it has been suggested that it could raise about $4.7 billion a year for the northeast states. However, increased costs on fuel suppliers will be passed along to drivers. Although the system is still conceptual in the northeast, in California, according to that state’s Independent Oil Marketer’s Association, an increase of about $.10 per gallon for gasoline and $.13 per gallon for diesel was predicted under that program. The states have been working on the new transportation framework for some time and there is no definitive timetable. Although RGGI for power plants was put in place relative quickly - in three years - the northeast states have been discussing the transportation sector for three years and there is still no agreement. The transportation sector has a variety of issues that need to be considered in establishing a cap and trade system for emissions. However, there are also significant political headwinds in play for a new regulatory framework, particularly since charging petroleum suppliers will lead to increased cost on consumers and likely be viewed as a regressive tax on gas and diesel. The states view the transportation cap and trade system as another option to meet their overall greenhouse gas emission objectives. In New York, the state’s energy plan requires a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emission from 1990 levels by 2030. New York is about half-way to that objective. However, the transportation sector accounts for approximately 44% of total carbon dioxide emissions in the RGGI states. These states, plus California, represent approximately 20% of all emissions from transportation in the country. While New York has seen emissions from the power industry drop by more than 50% since 1990, carbon emissions from the transportation area have increased by 17.5% in the same period. Any new environmental regulatory system with attendant costs to the consumers is likely to cause concern among the driving public and transportation industry. Based on the length of discussions on this topic among the northeast states, it will be interesting to see if the proposed cap and trade system is formally announced in upcoming months, and the structure that it will ultimately take. Download the Reprint from The Daily Record As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us here or call us at 585.258.2800.

The rule requiring many contracts to be in writing and signed by the party sought to be bound in order to be enforceable is called the “Statute of Frauds.” As everyone who has searched Wikipedia knows, that term comes from an Act of Parliament passed in 1677, entitled “An Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries.” This rule has been followed ever since as part of the common or statutory law in nearly every modern jurisdiction. As with most rules of law, there are, in certain circumstances, exceptions to the strict rule requiring the writing to be subscribed by a party to be enforceable. For example, Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code governing contracts between merchants provides that, if “within a reasonable time a writing in confirmation of the contract and sufficient against the sender is received and the party receiving it has reason to know its contents”, that party is bound unless it gives written notice of objection to its contents within ten days after receipt. In today’s business world, when many people conduct transactions by mobile device – via email or even text – enforceable contracts are made and ultimately performed, and this informality rarely causes any problems. However, the courts still strictly enforce the statute of frauds with respect to certain types of contracts, and most particularly, contracts for the sale of real property. We recently handled a matter that serves as a cautionary tale for those who use electronic communications when negotiating real property contracts. With the names and location changed to protect the innocent and the devious, here is that tale. Mr. Cairo was named the executor of Mr. Falcon’s estate, which included a beautiful waterfront home in Malta, New York. Although Cairo retained counsel to handle the estate administration, against counsel’s advice he decided to try to sell the house without a real estate agent in order to save the commission. One of the three prospective buyers, Mr. Gutman, badly wanted the house and in face-to-face meetings, phone calls and emails, pressured Cairo to agree to his offer. Finally, one night Gutman sent Cairo an email (copying the estate’s counsel) that restated the offered price but omitted other material terms, and asked Cairo: “Please respond by email that you accepted my offer.” Without consulting with counsel, Cairo immediately emailed back to Gutman: “I accept your offer. Please send all documents to my lawyer”, but he did not type his name at the end of the email. To make a long story short, the estate’s lawyer deemed the email exchange insufficient to form a contract, and after notifying Gutman and the other potential buyers that formal written contract offers should be submitted by a date certain, Cairo accepted the offer of prospective buyer Mr. Spade. Gutman promptly sued the Falcon estate for specific performance of the alleged contract and put a notice of pendency on the house. We were retained to represent the estate, and sent a letter to Gutman’s attorney informing him that the alleged contract was unenforceable under the statute of frauds and demanding that he discontinue the action and remove the notice of pendency. After Gutman’s lawyer demanded that the estate pay Gutman $100,000 to get out of the “contract”, we filed a summary judgment motion. Cairo’s first line of defense was based on the well-settled law that an enforceable real estate contract must state the necessary and essential terms of agreement, and that where, as was the case in this matter, an offer was subject to the approval of the estate’s attorney and the execution of a formal written contract, the alleged email contract was insufficient. The estate’s more fundamental argument, however, was that the emails relied upon by Gutman did not constitute a writing that satisfied the statute of frauds. In researching the issues, we found that while an exchange of emails could in certain circumstances qualify as a contract that satisfies the statute of frauds, those emails must not only show agreement to the essential terms, but must also be subscribed by the parties. We cited case law that held that an email sent by a party cannot constitute a writing for purposes of the statute of frauds unless the sending party “subscribed” that writing by his/her inclusion of his/her typed named or electronic signature after the body of the email. As explained in those cases, the addition of the sender’s typed name to the email provides the proof that the contract was subscribed by the party to be charged, as required by the New York General Obligations Law. In our case, because Cairo did not type his name or place his electronic signature below his email, it was not subscribed by Cairo and was not a writing for purposes of the statute of frauds. Gutman backed down and agreed to accept a nuisance settlement, but Cairo also had to pay Spade the costs he incurred as a result of the delay caused by the lawsuit. Although Cairo was able to dodge most of the bullets directed his way, his hair-trigger email response to Gutman put him in a position where he had to pay over $20,000 to Gutman and Spade and incur substantial legal fees. Had Cairo typed his name at the end of his email, he would have been in an even worse position, as he would have been deemed to have agreed to sell the house to both Gutman and Spade. This costly and painful experience taught Cairo that he should have listened to estate counsel and relied upon the expertise of a real estate agent in order to sell the house without complications. The lessons for the rest of us are that we need to be extremely careful when we conduct contract negotiations on our electronic devices, and that the parties should include their names at the end of their communications (and not rely upon the name/address/phone number blocks automatically generated by their email software) in order to create an enforceable contract. Download the Reprint from The Daily Record As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us here or call us at 585.258.2800.

Our 2018 edition of the Stay Current in Today's Residential Real Estate Market was held on 11/8/18. The agenda and the topics that were discussed at the annual event are below. Make sure to join our email club so you are notified when we host the next one! BUYING AND SELLING IN A COMPETITIVE MARKET The Ethics of Multiple Offers •What must be disclosed by agents New Construction •Interest rate protection •Customized draw schedules •Land loans Technology to Improve Your Buyers' Experience •Smartphone and web app - 24/7 access •On the spot pre-approvals •Apply at your convenience •Check current rates, program and payments Closing Disclosure •Updated TRID regulations eliminate closing delays New Doctor Program •Up to 97% LTV with no MI •Offer letter sufficient proof of income/employment •Deferred student loan debt not considered in qualifying Top 10 Ways to Risk Your Real Estate License •Review of actual NY cases and how agents lost their license JOIN US! Thursday, November 8, 2018 Locust Hill Country Club – 2000 Jefferson Road, Pittsford Registration & Breakfast 8:00 - 8:45 AM; Presentation 8:45 - 11:00 AM As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us here or call us at 585.258.2800.

Patrick L. Cusato is a recipient of The Daily Record’s 2018 Leaders in Law Award. This award honors attorneys who have shown dedication to the legal professional and selfless, tireless commitment to the community. Pat chairs Underberg & Kessler’s Real Estate practice group, is a partner in our Banking practice group, and a member of the Firm’s Executive Committee.  He focuses his practice in commercial and residential real estate, mortgage banking, and Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Pat is past president and an Executive Board member of the Mortgage Bankers Association of the Genesee Region, an Executive Board member of Bishop Sheen Ecumenical Housing Foundation, and immediate past Chair of the Monroe County Bar Association Real Estate Section. As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us here or call us at 585.258.2800.

Thomas F. Knab has been named a Buffalo Business First/Buffalo Law Journal 2018 Legal Elite. The Legal Elite list includes nearly 140 of the Buffalo region’s top attorneys as chosen by their peers. Tom is a partner in Underberg & Kessler’s Litigation, Corporate and Construction practice groups, and is a member of the Firm’s Executive Committee. He focuses his practice on commercial litigation, business and corporate disputes, and construction and real estate litigation. Tom is co-chair of the Board of Trustees of Preservation Buffalo Niagara. As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us here or call us at 585.258.2800.

In theory, the attorney-client privilege is pretty straightforward. A client retains an attorney, and thereafter that relationship is imbued with certain rights and benefits. These benefits include an expectation of confidential communications between attorney and client, as well as a prohibition on opposing counsel contacting a party that he or she knows to be represented by counsel. The prohibition on contacting a represented party is clear and obvious when the party is an individual. However, what if an attorney is representing a corporation or other large business? To whom do the benefits of the attorney-client relationship extend? Many people are surprised to learn that there is typically no prohibition on opposing counsel contacting “fact” employees of a corporation to discuss the subject matter of a legal issue or dispute. Rather, many businesses (and attorneys) believe that the attorney-client relationship applies to everyone from top level executives to the night watchman. This is simply not the case. The New York State Court of Appeals first addressed the issue of which employees of a corporate party should themselves also be considered “parties” in Niesig v. Team I, 76 N.Y.2d 363 (1990). Niesig involved a personal injury litigation where plaintiff’s counsel sought to privately interview a number of the corporate defendant’s employees who witnessed the accident. The defendant objected to the efforts by plaintiff’s counsel to privately interview its employees. The defendant sought a blanket rule that the attorney-client relationship applied to each and every employee of a corporate party. Conversely, the plaintiff sought to limit the definition of “party” to a small “control group,” i.e., only the highest level executives. In framing the dispute, the Court noted that while the rules relating to the attorney-client relationship unquestionably covered corporate parties, they did not adequately define who was a “party.” The Court of Appeals ultimately determined that the test that best balances those interests was one that defines “party” to include corporate employees whose acts or omissions in the matter under inquiry are binding on the corporation or imputed to the corporation for purposes of its liability, or employees implementing the advice of counsel. Id. Put another way, the decision in Niesig means that the only individuals who are off limits to contact by opposing counsel are those (1) who have the legal power to bind the corporation in the matter at hand, (2) who are responsible for implementing the advice of corporate counsel, or (3) individual employees whose own interests are directly at stake in the matter. The Court concluded that it was not necessary to shield all employees from contact by opposing counsel. It noted that a corporate party has many tools at its disposal to prevent the disclosure of harmful information. More specifically, a corporation has access to its documents and employees, the earliest and best opportunity to gather the facts and elicit information from its employees, and the ability to advise them that they are under no obligation to cooperate if contacted by opposing counsel. The progeny of Niesig has only entrenched this precedent – though the attendant risks and benefits of the decision continue to be misunderstood. Again, subject to the limits set forth in Niesig, there is no prohibition on opposing counsel contacting a corporate party’s employees. Concomitantly there is no obligation on the part of any fact employee to speak or otherwise engage with opposing counsel. To that end, an employee can essentially avail themselves of the benefits of the attorney-client relationship enjoyed by the corporation at large, but must affirmatively exercise the right to do so. In light of this precedent, a corporation (and both corporate counsel and outside counsel) should ensure that employees are clearly advised that they are under no obligation to speak with opposing counsel, and if contacted should refer opposing counsel to either corporate or outside counsel. Conversely, opposing counsel should not hesitate to reach out to “fact” employees in an attempt to gain information that could be useful to his or her client’s case. In the event that there has not been a warning or instruction to such employees, many are willing to give information that may be relevant to the case. At worst, the employee will refuse to talk to the attorney, or refer them to counsel. However, due to the widespread misunderstanding of the scope of the attorney-client relationship in the corporate context, these potential sources of information are often not explored. Download the Reprint from The Daily Record As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us here or call us at 585.258.2800.

My medical practice has a compliance plan and all staff are trained on HIPAA. However, my practice manager is insistent on implementing some electronic security measures that I believe are too stringent. What is enough? We have all heard of data breaches at large nationwide stores and health insurance companies. Hijacking records for ransom at hospitals and large health systems is also big news. What isn’t making as many headlines is hackers stealing patient identities through physician practices. Even though it’s not in the news, it is happening every day. Hackers realize tremendous value in stealing patient information that they can then use to commit several types of fraud. Generally, we recommend physician practices seek advice about cybersecurity issues from technical vendors. However, there are some steps any practice can take on its own. The practice’s computer network system must be secured. Never share the network password with non-employees. If necessary, create a guest network with password. All mobile devices should be encrypted and have password protection, including mobile phones, tablets and laptops. These devices should never be left unattended in the office without being secured. When traveling, do not use unsecured WiFi – for example, airport WiFi generally is not secure and is a haven for hackers. And of course, install anti-virus software and keep it updated. For breaches from unprotected laptops, a practice can expect fines, the requirement to notify all effected patients, and possible credit monitoring for patients whose data has been compromised. The office should require strong passwords (not “password” or “321321”)! Require use of at least eight characters with a variety of letters, numbers and symbols. Every user in the office should have a separate user name, and there should be a requirement to change passwords at least every 60 days. Consider purchasing cyber insurance. First check to see what coverage you may have through your malpractice and general liability policies. Do you have coverage for costs to notify patients in the event of a breach? Other costs to consider include state and federal fines, public relations costs, technical help for reconstruction of data, and credit monitoring. If not, look for cyber insurance that fits your practice needs. In this day, it is increasingly important for physicians to take all necessary precautions to secure patient records, both paper and electronic. The costs for not doing so, both financially and reputationally, can be significant. Download the Reprint from The Aug/Sept 2018 Edition of 'The Bulletin' by MCMS As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us here or call us at 585.258.2800.

On February 28, 2017 President Trump issued an Executive Order directing US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps of Engineers to review and rescind the 2015 “waters of the United States” rule that was issued under the Clean Water Act. The rule has been subject to protracted litigation nation-wide at the federal District and Court of Appeal level where it has been challenged by various industry, agriculture, development groups and affected states. The rule has been subject to stays in several courts and on January 22, 2018, the Supreme Court held that the Courts of Appeal do not have jurisdiction to review challenges to the rule. Thus, although the Sixth Circuit had issued a nationwide stay of the 2015 rule, litigation will have to proceed at the federal District Court level. Since the Executive Order, the agencies have determined to take a two-step process regarding the waters of the US rule. Step one is the repeal of the 2015 rule and recodification of the regulation in place prior to 2015, as discussed in this article. Simultaneously, step two is a substantial analysis and revision of the definition of the water of the US rule. In April 2017 the agencies reached out to state and local officials, as well as native American tribes, to solicit issues and concerns prior to proposing a new rule. The specter of litigation and uncertainty over challenges and the repeal process lead the two agencies to add an applicability date to the 2015 rule. Specifically, the agencies provided that the 2015 rule will not be applicable until February 20, 2020 so that the agencies will have time to address regulatory revisions to the waters of the US rule. In the interim, the pre-2015 rule will remain in place so that the regulated community has some certainty as the regulatory process unfolds. To accomplish the first step, the agencies issued a proposed rule on June 27, 2017 to repeal the 2015 rule and re-codify regulatory text that was in place prior to 2015. On June 29, 2018 the agencies signed a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking clarifying that the plan is to permanently repeal the 2015 rule entirely. Until the rule is revised, the agencies will continue to implement the program under the 1986/1988 regulatory definition of “waters of the US.” Although there are several categories of what is included in this definition, the most common categories in 40 CFR 230.3(s) “waters of the US” are: (1) waters which are currently used, were used in the past or may be used in foreign or interstate commerce; (2) all interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3) all other waters such as rivers, streams, wetlands, prairie potholes, natural ponds, etc., which if degraded could affect interstate commerce; (5) tributaries of waters identified in the rule; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters falling within the definition. Not surprisingly, the pre-2015 rule was also subject to significant litigation. The Supreme Court addressed aspects of the rule in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States in 2008. The agencies developed implementation guidance as to when jurisdiction would be asserted over waters and wetlands based on the Court’s holdings. Based on the guidance, the agencies will assert federal jurisdiction over the following waters: traditional navigable waters; wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters; non-navigable tributaries of such waters that are relatively permanent; and wetlands that directly adjoin such tributaries. Further, under the prior guidance, the agencies will perform fact specific reviews to determine whether a significant nexus exists with a traditional navigable water for the following: non-navigable waters that are not year-round; wetlands adjacent to such tributaries; and wetlands that are adjacent to but not directly abutting a permanent non-navigable tributary. In undertaking the analysis, the EPA and Corps will apply the significant nexus review by assessing flow characteristics and functions of the tributary, and the functions performed by the wetlands that are adjacent to the tributary, to determine whether they significantly impact the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the traditional navigable waters downstream. In addition, the significant nexus review will consider hydrologic and ecologic factors. The CWA “waters of the US rule” is a complicated rule that has a broad impact on Americans seeking to buy, sell, develop and use property in proximity to waterbodies and wetlands. The level of interest, commentary and litigation is significant and will continue as the regulatory revision process unfolds over coming months. While the end result and definition remain to be worked out, EPA and the Corps have implemented a plan to provide some degree of certainty to the regulated community during the course of the process. Download the Reprint from The Daily Record As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us here or call us at 585.258.2800.

We are proud to announce that 13 of our attorneys have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2019, and one attorney was named Rochester “Lawyer of the Year” in their area of practice. Mike Beyma, Jim Coniglio, Pat Cusato, Steve Gersz, Lew Heisman, Ron Hull, Kate Karl, Paul Keneally, Anna Lynch, Paul Nunes, Ed Russell, Margaret Somerset and George Van Nest are included in the 2019 edition under the following specialties: Mike Beyma – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law Jim Coniglio – Municipal Law Pat Cusato – Real Estate Law Steve Gersz – Closely Held Companies and Family Businesses Law, Corporate Law Lew Heisman – Family Law Ron Hull – Environmental Law, Litigation - Environmental Kate Karl – Commercial Finance Law, Real Estate Law Paul Keneally – Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Labor & Employment Anna Lynch – Corporate Law, Elder Law, Health Care Law Paul Nunes – Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions–Plaintiffs, Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions–Defendants, Personal Injury Litigation–Plaintiffs, Personal Injury Litigation–Defendants Ed Russell - Corporate Law Margaret Somerset – Medical Malpractice Law–Defendants George Van Nest – Environmental Law Additionally, Steve Gersz was named “Lawyer of the Year” in Rochester for Closely Held Companies and Family Businesses Law.  Only one area lawyer in each specialty receives this honor. Best Lawyers® conducted its annual peer-review survey in which 83,000 attorneys cast more than 7.4 million votes about the legal abilities of other lawyers in their practice areas. Lawyers are neither required nor allowed to pay a fee to be listed, and are included solely based on the results of the peer review. As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us here or call us at 585.258.2800.