ASG Law

Tag: Evident Partiality

  • Navigating Arbitration Awards: Understanding Evident Partiality in the Philippine Legal System

    Key Takeaway: Arbitration Awards and the Standard of Evident Partiality

    Tri-Mark Foods, Inc. v. Gintong Pansit, Atbp., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 215644, September 14, 2021

    In the bustling world of business, disputes are inevitable. Imagine a scenario where a franchisee accuses a franchisor of overpricing, leading to a breakdown in their business relationship. This was the real-world situation that unfolded between Tri-Mark Foods, Inc. and Gintong Pansit, Atbp., Inc., culminating in an arbitration award that was later challenged in court. The central legal question in this case revolves around whether an arbitrator’s decision can be vacated based on allegations of evident partiality, and what standards courts should apply in such cases.

    Tri-Mark Foods, Inc., the franchisor of the Ling Nam noodle house chain, entered into a franchise agreement with Gintong Pansit, Atbp., Inc., allowing the latter to operate a branch in Mandaluyong City. The relationship soured when Gintong Pansit accused Tri-Mark of overpricing food supplies. This led to arbitration, where Tri-Mark sought payment for unpaid royalties and supplies, while Gintong Pansit counterclaimed for damages due to alleged overpricing and discrimination.

    Legal Context: Understanding Arbitration and Evident Partiality

    Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution where parties agree to have their disputes resolved by a neutral third party, known as an arbitrator. In the Philippines, arbitration is governed by the Arbitration Law (Republic Act No. 876) and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 (Republic Act No. 9285), along with the Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution (Special ADR Rules).

    Evident partiality is a ground for vacating an arbitral award under Section 24 of the Arbitration Law, which states that an award may be vacated if “there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators or any of them.” The challenge lies in defining what constitutes evident partiality. The Supreme Court has clarified that it requires a showing that a reasonable person would have to conclude that an arbitrator was partial to one party to the arbitration.

    Key provisions from the Special ADR Rules include:

    “RULE 11.4. Grounds. – (A) To vacate an arbitral award. – The arbitral award may be vacated on the following grounds: […] (b) There was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitral tribunal or any of its members; […].”

    Consider a scenario where a homeowner hires a contractor to build an extension to their house. If the contractor and the arbitrator have a pre-existing business relationship that is not disclosed, and the arbitrator rules in favor of the contractor, this could be seen as evident partiality, as it might suggest bias towards the contractor.

    Case Breakdown: The Journey from Arbitration to the Supreme Court

    The dispute between Tri-Mark and Gintong Pansit began with a franchise agreement in 2006. Tensions arose in 2008 when Gintong Pansit noticed higher prices for supplies compared to other branches. After failed attempts to resolve the issue, Tri-Mark demanded payment in 2009, leading to arbitration in 2010.

    The arbitrator, Reynaldo Saludares, issued a final award in favor of Tri-Mark, ordering Gintong Pansit to pay over P5.5 million. Gintong Pansit challenged this award in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging evident partiality by the arbitrator for disregarding evidence of overpricing. The RTC vacated the award, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA).

    The Supreme Court, however, reversed these decisions. The Court emphasized that evident partiality must be based on the arbitrator’s conduct, not merely on disagreement with the arbitrator’s weighing of evidence:

    “The Court cannot agree with the CA that the arbitrator’s act of disregarding certain documentary and testimonial evidence presented by a party, by itself, can rise to the level of evident partiality in the arbitrator to justify vacating an arbitral award.”

    The Supreme Court clarified that the standard for evident partiality is the “reasonable impression of partiality,” which requires proof that is direct, definite, and capable of demonstration:

    “The standard, using the very words of the Court in RCBC Capital Corp., requires a showing that a reasonable person would have to conclude that an arbitrator was partial to one party to the arbitration, where proof of such interest, bias or partiality is direct, definite and capable of demonstration rather than remote, uncertain, or speculative.”

    The procedural journey included:

    • Arbitration proceedings in 2010, resulting in a final award in favor of Tri-Mark.
    • Gintong Pansit’s petition to vacate the award in the RTC, which was granted in 2011.
    • Tri-Mark’s appeal to the CA, which affirmed the RTC’s decision in 2013.
    • Tri-Mark’s petition for review to the Supreme Court, which reversed the lower courts’ decisions in 2021.

    Practical Implications: Navigating Arbitration Awards

    This ruling reinforces the finality of arbitration awards and sets a high bar for vacating them on grounds of evident partiality. Businesses engaging in arbitration must understand that courts will not easily overturn an arbitrator’s decision based on disagreements over evidence or legal interpretation.

    For businesses, this means:

    • Ensuring transparency and fairness in the arbitration process to avoid allegations of partiality.
    • Understanding that arbitration awards are generally final and binding, with limited grounds for judicial review.
    • Seeking legal advice to navigate arbitration agreements and potential disputes effectively.

    Key Lessons:

    • Parties should carefully select arbitrators to ensure impartiality.
    • Evidence of partiality must be clear and convincing, not merely speculative.
    • Businesses should be prepared to abide by arbitration awards unless clear grounds for vacating exist.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is arbitration and how does it differ from litigation?

    Arbitration is a private dispute resolution process where parties agree to have their disputes decided by an arbitrator rather than a court. It is generally faster and less formal than litigation.

    What is evident partiality in arbitration?

    Evident partiality refers to a situation where an arbitrator shows bias towards one party, which can be a ground for vacating an arbitral award. The bias must be clear and demonstrable to a reasonable person.

    Can an arbitration award be appealed?

    Arbitration awards are generally final and binding, with limited grounds for appeal. Parties can seek to vacate an award in court, but only on specific grounds like evident partiality or fraud.

    How can a business ensure fairness in arbitration?

    Businesses can ensure fairness by selecting impartial arbitrators, clearly defining the arbitration process in their agreements, and ensuring all evidence is considered during proceedings.

    What should a business do if it believes an arbitration award is unfair?

    If a business believes an arbitration award is unfair, it should consult with legal counsel to assess whether there are grounds to challenge the award, such as evident partiality or other statutory grounds.

    ASG Law specializes in arbitration and dispute resolution. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Arbitrator Impartiality: When Third-Party Influence Taints Arbitration Awards in the Philippines

    The Supreme Court held that an arbitration award could be vacated due to evident partiality if a reasonable person would conclude that an arbitrator favored one party. The arbitrator’s conduct, specifically providing one party with legal arguments, compromised the fairness and impartiality required in arbitration proceedings, undermining the integrity of alternative dispute resolution.

    Whose Side Are You On? Questioning Partiality in Arbitration

    In the case of RCBC Capital Corporation v. Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc., two petitions were consolidated following a dispute arising from a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) between RCBC and Equitable-PCI Bank, Inc. (EPCIB). RCBC claimed an overpayment for shares due to an overstatement of Bankard, Inc.’s accounts, leading to arbitration proceedings under the International Chamber of Commerce-International Court of Arbitration (ICC-ICA) rules, as stipulated in the SPA. The core issue revolved around whether the Second Partial Award, which ordered EPCIB (later BDO) to reimburse RCBC for advance costs paid to the ICC-ICA, was valid, or whether it should be vacated due to evident partiality on the part of the arbitration tribunal’s chairman.

    The heart of the controversy lies in the arbitration proceedings where RCBC sought to recover alleged overpayments for shares purchased in Bankard. When a disagreement arose, the Share Purchase Agreement stipulated that it should be submitted to arbitration under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce-International Court of Arbitration. To initiate arbitration, both parties were required to contribute to the advance costs, which EPCIB failed to pay. RCBC then covered EPCIB’s share to prevent suspension of the proceedings, later seeking reimbursement through a partial award. This request exposed a critical point of contention: whether the chairman of the arbitration tribunal demonstrated evident partiality towards RCBC.

    The Supreme Court scrutinized whether Chairman Barker had shown bias towards RCBC. The inquiry was not merely about establishing bias, but whether a reasonable person, aware of the circumstances, would conclude that Barker was partial to RCBC. The court referenced the standard from Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., emphasizing that tribunals must not only be unbiased but also avoid any appearance of bias. The actions of Chairman Barker, specifically furnishing the parties with a legal article, became the focal point of the court’s analysis.

    The act of Chairman Barker in providing both parties with Matthew Secomb’s article, “Awards and Orders Dealing With the Advance on Costs in ICC Arbitration: Theoretical Questions and Practical Problems,” raised substantial concerns. The Supreme Court emphasized that this article “reflected in advance the disposition of the ICC arbitral tribunal.” By furnishing the parties with the Secomb article, the Supreme Court explained, “Chairman Barker practically armed RCBC with supporting legal arguments.” It appeared that Barker was aiding RCBC by offering them favorable legal interpretations, undermining the impartiality expected of an arbitrator. It’s as if the referee in a basketball game privately gave one team a playbook on how to exploit loopholes in the rules.

    In its decision, the Supreme Court quoted Section 10 of the Share Purchase Agreement, stating that “substantive aspects of the dispute shall be settled by applying the laws of the Philippines.” As such, it turned to R.A. 9285, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004, to inform its discussion. Rule 11.4 of the Special ADR Rules sets forth the grounds for vacating an arbitral award. Of particular importance to the case was section (A)(b), stating that an arbitral award may be vacated if “[t]here was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitral tribunal or any of its members.” The Supreme Court ultimately based its decision on this ground, citing Chairman Barker’s evident partiality toward RCBC.

    To clarify the standard for assessing evident partiality, the Supreme Court cited the Oregon Court of Appeals, defining “partiality” as “the inclination to favor one side” and “evident” as “clear to the understanding : obvious, manifest, apparent.” Evident partiality, therefore, implies that there are “signs and indications” that lead to the conclusion that one side is being favored. The Court adopted the reasonable impression of partiality standard, requiring a showing that a reasonable person would conclude that an arbitrator was partial to a party in the arbitration. In doing so, the Court cited the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court’s decision in Apperson v. Fleet Carrier Corporation, which held that the challenging party must show that “a reasonable person would have to conclude that an arbitrator was partial” to the other party to the arbitration.

    The Supreme Court differentiated its ruling from earlier jurisprudence, most notably the U.S. Supreme Court case, Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., et al., which some interpreted as holding arbitrators to the same standards of conduct imposed on judges. Instead, the Court made clear that the appropriate standard is the reasonable impression of partiality. This means that an arbitrator’s conduct must suggest bias to a reasonable observer, not that arbitrators must adhere to judicial decorum. The Court then stated that this interest or bias “must be direct, definite and capable of demonstration rather than remote, uncertain, or speculative.”

    Furthermore, the Court emphasized the importance of upholding the integrity of arbitration as a method of alternative dispute resolution. ADR methods are encouraged because they “provide solutions that are less time-consuming, less tedious, less confrontational, and more productive of goodwill and lasting relationship.” The most important element to arbitration’s success, the Court reasoned, is “the public’s confidence and trust in the integrity of the process.” If there is no trust in the process, then the process will not be viable.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court denied RCBC’s petition and affirmed the CA’s decision to vacate the Second Partial Award. The Court also denied BDO’s petition, finding no reversible error in the CA’s denial of a stay order or TRO against the Final Award’s execution because BDO had already settled the payment, rendering the request moot. The Supreme Court declared that the act of the Chairman was indicative of partiality, and thus the arbitration was not fair. Though ADR is encouraged, it cannot come at the cost of partiality.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the Second Partial Award should be vacated due to evident partiality on the part of the arbitration tribunal’s chairman, affecting the fairness of the arbitration process.
    What did the Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) stipulate? The SPA stipulated that any disputes would be settled through arbitration under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce-International Court of Arbitration (ICC-ICA).
    Why was the arbitration tribunal chairman accused of partiality? The chairman was accused of partiality because he provided both parties with a legal article that the Supreme Court found “reflected in advance the disposition of the ICC arbitral tribunal,” thus “arming RCBC with supporting legal arguments.”
    What is the ‘reasonable impression of partiality’ standard? The ‘reasonable impression of partiality’ standard, adopted by the Supreme Court, requires a showing that a reasonable person would conclude that an arbitrator was partial to one party.
    What is the significance of R.A. 9285 in this case? R.A. 9285, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004, was used to inform the discussion and ultimately provided the grounds for the Supreme Court’s decision, specifically, that “[t]here was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitral tribunal or any of its members.”
    Why did the Supreme Court deny BDO’s petition for a stay order? The Supreme Court denied BDO’s petition because BDO had already settled the payment, thus rendering the request moot.
    Why is maintaining trust in arbitration important? The Court reasoned that maintaining trust in arbitration is essential because it is the most important element to the success of the process. If there is no trust in the process, then the process will not be viable.
    What did the Court clarify about its ruling? The Court clarified that its ruling adopted the standard of a ‘reasonable impression of partiality,’ which meant that an arbitrator’s conduct must suggest bias to a reasonable observer, and that an arbitrator’s bias “must be direct, definite and capable of demonstration rather than remote, uncertain, or speculative.”

    This case underscores the necessity of maintaining impartiality in arbitration proceedings, reinforcing the principles of fairness and integrity in alternative dispute resolution. Parties involved in arbitration should be vigilant in ensuring that arbitrators remain neutral, thereby upholding the credibility and effectiveness of the arbitration process.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: RCBC Capital Corporation v. Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc., G.R. Nos. 196171 & 199238, December 10, 2012

  • Judicial Accountability in the Philippines: When Judges are Held Liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law

    Upholding Judicial Integrity: Holding Judges Accountable for Legal Misconduct

    TLDR: This case underscores the Philippine Supreme Court’s commitment to judicial accountability. It demonstrates that judges, who are expected to be paragons of legal knowledge and integrity, will be held administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and evident partiality, ensuring public trust in the judiciary.

    A.M. No. MTJ-98-1166, December 04, 1998

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine a courtroom where the very person entrusted to uphold the law, the judge, demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of it. This scenario, far from being hypothetical, can erode public confidence in the justice system. The Philippine Supreme Court, in Andres Guillen, et al. v. Judge Aproniano B. Nicolas, addressed such a situation, emphasizing that judges are not above scrutiny and must be held accountable for gross ignorance of the law and actions that betray partiality. This case serves as a potent reminder that judicial office is a public trust, demanding competence, integrity, and impartiality.

    In this case, four complainants filed an administrative complaint against Judge Aproniano B. Nicolas of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Piddig-Solsona-Carasi, Ilocos Norte, alleging gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, and evident partiality. The accusations stemmed from Judge Nicolas’s handling of several criminal cases filed by the complainants. The central legal question revolved around whether Judge Nicolas’s actions in these cases constituted gross ignorance of the law, evident partiality, and violations of judicial ethics, warranting administrative sanctions.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

    Judges in the Philippines are expected to embody the highest standards of legal knowledge and ethical conduct. This expectation is enshrined in the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which demand that judges must exhibit competence, integrity, and impartiality. Gross ignorance of the law and evident partiality are considered serious offenses that undermine public confidence in the judiciary and are grounds for administrative sanctions.

    Gross Ignorance of the Law is not simply making an error in legal interpretation. It involves a blatant disregard of well-established rules of law, procedural norms, or jurisprudence. It suggests a lack of even rudimentary acquaintance with legal principles. As the Supreme Court has consistently held, judges are expected to possess more than just a cursory knowledge of the law; they must be proficient in it.

    Evident Partiality, on the other hand, occurs when a judge displays bias or favoritism towards one party over another. This can manifest in various ways, such as procedural irregularities that benefit one side, decisions clearly unsupported by evidence, or even improper fraternization with litigants. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct explicitly states that “A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.”

    Several legal provisions and rules are pertinent to this case:

    • Rule on Summary Procedure: This rule governs the procedure in Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in certain criminal cases where the penalty does not exceed six months imprisonment or a fine of P1,000. However, it explicitly excludes cases “necessarily related to another criminal case subject to the ordinary procedure.”
    • Rule 112 of the Rules of Court: This rule outlines the procedure for preliminary investigations. Section 9(b) specifically details the procedure when a complaint is filed directly with the Municipal Trial Court, requiring the judge to personally examine the complainant and witnesses under oath to determine probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest.
    • Circular No. 1-90: This Supreme Court circular addresses the notarial functions of judges ex officio, specifying rules for fees and certifications when acting as notaries public in areas where no notary public is available.

    These legal frameworks set the stage for understanding the gravity of Judge Nicolas’s actions and the Supreme Court’s response.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: ERRORS IN PROCEDURE AND APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY

    The administrative complaint against Judge Nicolas arose from his handling of five criminal cases filed by Andres Guillen, Eulalio Guillen, Vicente Cid, and Jimmy Bayag against Isidro Jacinto and others. These cases included charges of Slander by Deed, Malicious Mischief, Direct Assault, and Resistance and Disobedience to a Person in Authority.

    Here’s a timeline of the key events:

    1. November 20, 1994: The alleged crimes were committed.
    2. December 1994: Criminal cases filed against Isidro Jacinto and others.
    3. March 16, 1995: Judge Nicolas arraigned the accused without issuing warrants of arrest.
    4. July 10, 1995: Complainants filed an Urgent Motion for Issuance of Warrant of Arrest, which Judge Nicolas denied. He instead required bail, later reducing it upon the accused’s motion.
    5. August 29, 1996: Judge Nicolas rendered a decision acquitting all accused in four cases and convicting Isidro Jacinto in only one (Slander by Deed) with a minimal fine.
    6. October 1, 1996: Complainants executed affidavits alleging Judge Nicolas’s fraternization with accused Isidro Jacinto and their business partnership.
    7. October 2, 1996: Administrative complaint filed against Judge Nicolas.

    The complainants argued that Judge Nicolas displayed gross ignorance of the law by applying the Rule on Summary Procedure incorrectly and failing to issue warrants of arrest. They also pointed to evident partiality due to his acquittal of the accused in most cases and his close relationship with accused Isidro Jacinto.

    The Supreme Court, after investigation by an Executive Judge, agreed with the findings of misconduct. The Court highlighted several critical errors by Judge Nicolas:

    • Misapplication of Summary Procedure: The Court emphasized that while some charges might fall under summary procedure individually, one charge – Direct Assault – carried a penalty exceeding six months. Crucially, because all cases were related, ordinary procedure should have been applied to all. Judge Nicolas’s failure to recognize this and apply summary procedure improperly constituted gross ignorance of the law. The Court stated: “It being undisputed that the four other cases were necessarily related to Criminal Case No. 3164-P, which, as earlier stated, fell within the ambit of regular procedure, the rule on summary procedure would not be applicable.”
    • Failure to Issue Warrant of Arrest: Under ordinary procedure and Rule 112, Judge Nicolas was obligated to determine probable cause through personal examination of witnesses and then issue warrants of arrest. He failed to do this, further demonstrating a lack of understanding of basic criminal procedure.
    • Evident Partiality: The Court concurred with the investigating judge’s finding of evident partiality, particularly in the acquittals for malicious mischief. The rationale used by Judge Nicolas was deemed “beyond comprehension,” suggesting a biased approach to the evidence.
    • Violation of Circular No. 1-90 and Judicial Conduct: Judge Nicolas’s notarization of promissory notes for accused Jacinto’s business, while permissible due to the lack of notaries public, violated rules on remitting fees and certifying the absence of other notaries. More importantly, it created an appearance of impropriety and a conflict of interest, breaching Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

    The Supreme Court concluded that Judge Nicolas’s actions were not mere errors in judgment but stemmed from gross ignorance of the law and evident partiality, compounded by conduct unbecoming a judge.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: UPHOLDING JUDICIAL STANDARDS AND PUBLIC TRUST

    This case serves as a significant precedent for judicial accountability in the Philippines. It reinforces several key principles:

    • Judges Must Be Competent in the Law: Gross ignorance of the law is not tolerated. Judges are expected to have a firm grasp of legal principles and procedures relevant to their jurisdiction. This case sends a clear message that incompetence will be met with administrative sanctions.
    • Impartiality is Non-Negotiable: The appearance of partiality is as damaging as actual bias. Judges must avoid situations that create even the perception of favoritism, including close relationships or business dealings with litigants appearing before them.
    • Procedural Rules Matter: Adherence to procedural rules is crucial for ensuring fairness and due process. Deviations from established procedures, especially those indicating a lack of legal understanding, can lead to administrative liability.
    • Accountability Mechanisms Work: The administrative complaint system provides a vital check on judicial conduct. This case demonstrates that complaints are taken seriously, investigated thoroughly, and can result in significant penalties for erring judges.

    Key Lessons for the Public and Legal Professionals:

    • For Litigants: This case assures the public that judicial misconduct will not be overlooked. If you believe a judge has acted improperly due to ignorance of the law or partiality, you have recourse through the administrative complaint process.
    • For Judges: Continuous legal education and adherence to ethical standards are paramount. Maintaining impartiality and avoiding even the appearance of impropriety are essential to upholding the integrity of the judicial office.
    • For Lawyers: It is the duty of lawyers to uphold the integrity of the court. Filing administrative complaints against erring judges, when warranted, is part of this duty to ensure a fair and just legal system.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q: What is administrative liability for judges?

    A: Administrative liability refers to the responsibility of judges for misconduct in office. Unlike criminal or civil liability, administrative liability is concerned with breaches of judicial ethics, rules of procedure, and other standards of conduct expected of judges. Penalties can range from fines and suspension to dismissal from service.

    Q: What constitutes gross ignorance of the law?

    A: Gross ignorance of the law involves a judge’s blatant disregard of established law, rules, or jurisprudence. It is more than simple error; it suggests a fundamental lack of legal competence and can be grounds for administrative sanctions.

    Q: What is evident partiality in the context of judicial misconduct?

    A: Evident partiality occurs when a judge demonstrates bias or favoritism towards one party in a case. This can be shown through actions, decisions, or even associations that suggest the judge is not acting impartially.

    Q: What are the penalties for gross ignorance of the law and evident partiality for judges?

    A: Penalties can vary depending on the severity of the misconduct. In this case, Judge Nicolas was suspended for six months without pay and fined P10,000. More serious cases can result in dismissal from judicial service.

    Q: How can I file an administrative complaint against a judge in the Philippines?

    A: Administrative complaints against judges are typically filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of the Supreme Court. The complaint should be verified and detail the specific acts of misconduct with supporting evidence.

    Q: What is the Rule on Summary Procedure and when does it apply?

    A: The Rule on Summary Procedure simplifies the process for certain minor offenses in lower courts. It generally applies to criminal cases where the penalty is light (up to six months imprisonment or P1,000 fine), and to certain civil cases of limited monetary value. However, it does not apply if a case is related to another case under ordinary procedure.

    Q: Why is impartiality so crucial for judges?

    A: Impartiality is the cornerstone of the justice system. Public confidence in the judiciary depends on the belief that judges are fair, unbiased, and decide cases based on law and evidence, not personal favoritism. Without impartiality, the rule of law is undermined.

    ASG Law specializes in litigation and administrative law, including cases involving judicial misconduct. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.