Networking Can Be An Ethical Landmine. Be Careful.

By Roy Ginsburg on Nov 10, 2011

Done right, networking is essential for growth; Done wrong, networking can be unethical

For solo lawyers in almost all practice areas, success depends on the relationships you develop through personal networking. Many of you already know that and are actively networking. What you may not know is that a lawyer’s networking activities are governed by ethics rules. While my goal is clearly not to inhibit your networking efforts or put a damper on your enthusiasm for interaction with potential clients or referrers of clients, I do want to point out some of the ethics rules so you will be more aware of these tripwires that land unsuspecting lawyers in hot water.

Each state bar has its own rules of professional conduct, based on the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Despite some differences from state to state, the rules about networking are very similar to what the ABA recommends.

While the word “networking” itself does not appear in the language, state rules address business development and the solicitation of new clients – which is certainly a primary goal of networking. All lawyers seem to know the “rule” that attorneys are not supposed to chase ambulances. But what does that really mean?

According to ABA Model Rule 7.3, lawyers cannot “solicit professional employment from a prospective client” in person, by telephone or by real-time electronic contact — unless the person being solicited is a lawyer or has a “family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer.”

From my extensive experience, lawyers misunderstand four major components of Rule 7.3 as it relates to networking for new business.

First, lawyers erroneously believe that the rule applies only to hospital emergency rooms. In fact, the rule applies to personal contact in any type of room in any kind of building. In addition, these rules govern phone contact and even interactive online contact.

Second, lawyers believe it is usually appropriate to solicit a “sophisticated” client, like a small business owner or executive. In fact, there is no such exception in the rule. While it’s likely that the rule was created to protect unsophisticated clients in hospitals, it is not written that way. If you learn that a company is being sued, and call asking to be considered as defense counsel, and the exceptions listed above don’t apply, then you violate Rule 7.3.

Third, lawyers often misunderstand ethics at the intersection of networking and the referral process. Successful networkers frequently receive calls saying, “My friend really needs your help. Here’s the phone number. Give him a call.” Think twice before you make this kind of call. Do not assume that a referral means consent.

When someone is nice enough to refer you to a potential client, thank the referral source and then let the referrer know that ethics rules prohibit you from making the initial contact. You could face disciplinary action for doing so. Ask the referral source to please forward this information to the potential client and have the client call or email you instead.

Fourth, many lawyers ask about the ethics of picking up the tab for a meal or entertainment for a referral source. Rule 7.2(b) states that “a lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services.” Are courtside seats worth $500 considered “anything of value” in this context?

Under most circumstances, the answer is no. Most state regulatory bodies would view client entertainment expenses as an accepted form of business development effort – as long as there is no explicit quid pro quo for the entertainment. You would not want to state, “Client X, thank you very much for that case. Since you gave me that business, my firm will take your entire family to the circus. “

There are countless business articles and books that discuss how to network — and the importance of “asking for the business” when you network. While this advice applies to most business people, it can get lawyers in trouble. Under some circumstances, simply “asking for the business” can violate rules of professional conduct and subject you to discipline. Don’t be afraid to cultivate business. That’s not the point of this post. However, know your professional boundaries so you can enjoy networking knowing you are in full compliance with the rules.

股权转让协议

本股权转让协议（以下简称“本协议”）由以下双方于本协议最后所载明日期签订

_____________（身份证号：___________________________）（以下简称“卖方”）； 和

_____________（身份证号：___________________________）（以下简称“买方”）

鉴于

卖方与_________、_______、_______共同投资在上海_______设立了上海______________有限公司（以下简称“目标公司”）。目标公司概况如下：注册资本：_________________万元；注册地址：上海市______区______路______号；成立时间：______年______月______日；法定代表人：_______________。目标公司的股东及持股比例：______持股___%，______持股___%，______持股___%

 有意将其所持有的 的____%股权转让给 ， 有意向 购买该股权。根据本协议中所规定的相互承诺、陈述、保证及合意， 与 现根据《中华人民共和国合同法》和《中华人民共和国公司法》的相关规定，就有关该股权转让事宜达成下列条款，以备共同遵守之。

第一条 出让股权的交易

1.1 交易

根据本协议所规定的条款和条件，于交割日（定义见下文）， 作为 股权的合法的所有者及受益者向 出售 ___________（百分之_____）的股权（以下简称“出让股权”）以及附属于出让股权的一切权利和义务。

1.2 买价及支付

 为向 购买出让股权应支付的对价总额（以下简称“买价”）及支付方式应按照本协议附件一的规定。

第二条 交割条件

双方同意，下述条件全部完备之日即为本协议所设定交易的交割日：

(a) 本协议下所设定的股权转让事宜必须经 的股东会一致通过。

(b) 为履行本协议项下各自的义务，完成本协议项下的交易，确保本协议和本协议项下的交易不被取消、宣布无效或被搁置，必须获得所有必需的有关政府机构的批准、授权和同意，这些批准、授权和同意在形式上和在内容上应令双方满意，并将不会被取消。

(c) 本协议下所设定的股权转让事宜获得授权方的同意。

(d)  对 的注册资本出资应该全部到位。

 承诺于 付清附件一所规定的第四笔款项之日起30天内将 的股权过户给 。

第三条 双方的陈述和保证

3.1  卖方的陈述与保证：

 向 作如下陈述和保证，并保证各项陈述和保证于协议签署之日至交割日是真实和有效的。

(a) 有效性： 对本协议和其它相关文件的签署和履行已按公司内部程序得到充分有效的授权（如果 是公司的话），对 构成合法的、有效的及有约束力的义务，依照本协议的相关条款对 完全可以执行。

(b) 出让股权的所有权：如本协议序言部分所规定， 是出让股权的合法的所有者及受益者，所有该些股权上不存在任何他方请求权。

(c) 在 的合理要求下， 将向 提供所有与本次转让有关的协议、文件，以便于本协议的履行。

(d)  保证，其所持有的出让股权上并末设置任何性质的质押权、留置权、司法限制或任何其他物权或债权。

(e)  保证， 已经办妥了合法开展其业务所需要的各类证照。

(e)  保证， 现在的债务情况已经全部列明在附件四的债务清单中，不存在未在债务清单中列明的欠款、负债或责任，也未曾为任何第三方提供任何担保或承担任何责任。目标股权转让完成后，若有任何第三方向 提出索赔或要求 承担任何责任，而该等索赔或责任未在债务清单中列明者，一律由 承担；给 造成任何损失时， 应向 进行相应数额的赔偿。在此情况下，若 未能及时清偿或履行该债务或责任而导致 不得不对外清偿和履行的， 和/或 应对 具有追偿权，且 应对债务或责任承担连带责任，在应诉时 和/或 可要求有关司法机构将 追加为第三人。

(f) 本协议签订之日前 应缴未缴的税费、应付未付的罚款（如有），均由 承担连带清偿责任。本协议下的股权转让完成后，如 接到税务机关或其他部门的通知、罚单，要求其缴清完成之前的任何税费、罚款， 应通知 ，要求 在限定期限内清偿该等款项，若 未能及时清偿而导致 不得不对外清偿的， 和/或 应对 具有追偿权，且 应对该等款项承担连带责任。

(g)  保证于收到 根据附件一支付的第三笔价款之日完成与本协议下交易有关的工商行政管理局的变更登记手续；法定代表人也应同时由 重新指定并变更。

3.2  买方的陈述与保证：

 向 作如下陈述和保证，并保证各项陈述和保证于协议签署之日至交割日是真实和有效的。

(a) 有效性：  对本协议和其它相关文件的签署对 构成合法的、有效的及有约束力的义务，依照本协议的相关条款对 完全可以执行。

(b) 在 的合理要求下，提供所有与本次转让有关的协议、文件，以便于本协议的履行。

(c) 本协议签订之后（交割日后）股权转让完成之前 所发生的债务、欠款、罚款由 以其对 的投资来承担，但 对此有过错的话则由 承担。

第四条 股权转让的效力

4.1 根据本协议所述的条款和条件，双方在此一致同意合理尽力采取为完成本协议下交易所需的一切必要的行动和措施，包括但不限于：(i)在转让之前取得为完成本协议下交易所必需的政府机关的同意、证明、批准、授权和资格；(ii)使所有必要的登记和备案有效；及(iii)就上述事项相互提供所需的信息和协助。

4.2 股权转让后， 按在 所占股权比例享受和承担 的债权、债务及其他作为股东的权利和义务。

4.3 股权转让后， 有权根据有关法律、法规的规定要求修改和签发 章程。

4.4 在股权转让之后，双方应分别或共同采取适当的行动以及签署必要的文件以完成本协议所设定之交易及实现本协议之宗旨。

4.5 为担保本协议的履行， 支付第一笔价款之后和工商局签发以 为新股东的营业执照之前， 的股权应质押予 ，双方为此另行签署股权质押合同；工商局签发以 为新股东的营业执照之后， 支付最后一笔价款之前， 的股权应质押予 ，双方届时为此另行签署股权质押合同。

第五条 保密条款

5.1 为本协议之目的，秘密信息一词指的是任何与各方经营有关的不对社会公众发布的带有保密性质的信息。

5.2 除非得到该方的事先同意，任何其他协议方不得将秘密信息、泄露予任何第三方。

5.3 各方应采取任何必要措施，将秘密信息限制在已获悉这些信息的有关的职员、代理人或顾问的范围内，并要求他们严格遵守本条款，不得将有关秘密信息泄露予任何第三方。各方承诺不将信息透露、披露或泄露给其无关的职员。

5.4 以下情况下，任何一方均不被视为披露、透露或泄露秘密信息：

(1) 所泄露的资料已为公众所知(但以违反本条款方式泄露的除外)；

(2) 经其他各方事先书面同意；

(3) 应政府主管部门或法律法令的强制性要求。

第六条 违约和赔偿

6.1 双方同意任何一方违反本协议的规定，使其他一方因此而遭受损失的，应赔偿其他方的损失。

6.2  违反本协议规定未能将 的股权按时转让给 ，则 应根据所拖延的时间每逾期一天按照买价每天万分之五支付违约金给 ；若 违反本协议规定未能按时向 支付本协议下的买价，则违约方应根据违约所涉及的金额就逾期时间向 支付每天万分之五的违约金。

6.3 任何一方根本违反本协议之规定，则另一方有权立即解除本协议，并要求违约方承担违约责任，在此情况下，违约方须偿付另一方人民币______万元（人民币______万元）的违约金。

第七条 费用与税收

除非法律或者本协议另有规定，双方均各自承担其由本协议下的股权转让发生的有关费用，包括但不限于：所有法律顾问费用、会计费用、咨询费用。 与 应各自承担并支付其各自就本协议所设定之交易根据税法规定可能被征收或有义务支付的税款。

第八条 变更和解除

本协议的变更和解除，应经协议双方同意并签署协议。修改的部分与本协议具有相同的法律效力，除修改部分外，其余部分仍完全有效。除非有双方签署的书面文件，本协议不得因任何方式被变更、修改、取消或替换。

第九条 争议解决和法律适用

9.1 凡因本协议发生的或者与本协议有关的任何争议、争执、索赔、违约终止或合同无效等均应通过友好协商解决。协商不成应提交上海市______区人民法院以诉讼方式解决。

9.2 在本协议引起的或与其相关的任何争议得到最终解决之前，每一方均须持续履行其在本协议项下的义务，争议所涉及的部分除外。

第十条 弃权

本协议任何一方任何未行使或延迟行使本协议项下的权利的行为并不构成对该等权利的放弃；任何单独或部分行使任何权利的行为并不排斥其将来对其他权利的行使。任何一方可放弃本协议项下的任何权利，但该等放弃只有在该方的授权代表签署的书面文件已发出才为有效。

第十一条 可分割性

若本协议的任何条款或规定因任何原因被判定为无效或无法执行，除非该条款或规定的无效或无法执行在实质上已影响整个协议的继续履行，否则该无效或无法执行并不影响任何其它条款和规定，并且该无效或无法执行的条款和规定应被视为已从本协议中删除。

第十二条 其他事项

12.1 转让： 在此同意 于本合同下的权利义务是可以转让的，即 可以将本合同下的权利和义务转让给 所指定的任何公司、组织或个人。若 作出此等指定，则视同 与 所指定的任何公司、组织或个人签署本协议。

12.2 第三方利益：本协议对每一方当事人、他们各自的继承者和经允许的 有约束力并使其受益。本协议中没有任何内容可以被明示或默示地看作向除各当事方、他们各自的继承者和经允许的 以外的其他任何人或实体授予权利、救济或义务。

12.3 非合伙或代理：任何一方都无权以对方的名义明示或默示地设置任何义务。

12.4 通知：依照本协议向一方发出的任何通知应当采取书面形式，并按照下列方式发出：（i）以信函方式通知，信函已写明被通知人的地址，资费已付，已挂号或登记；（ii）以传真或者电子邮件发给被通知人；（iii）或者通知内容有书面记载的其它任何方式。通知若以挂号或登记的信函发送，发出七日后视为收讫。通知若以传真或电子邮件发送，以传真机或电子邮件系统记录的发出时间为对方收到时间。以任何其它方式发出的通知应当被视为于实际交付接收人之时发出并生效。任何一方的名称、地址或法定授权代表人若发生变更时，须及时书面通知对方。

12.5 副本：本协议一式陆份，双方各执壹扮，另肆份供报批及备案。

12.6 标题：本协议中的所有条款的标题只是为了方便阅读，不能以任何形式作为对本协议的解释或影响本协议的含意。

12.7 完整的协议：本协议及其附件(若有)是唯一完整准确地描述各方意图的决定性文件，构成了 和 双方之间对有关本协议标的的事宜的完整的协议，并且没有其他有关本协议的优先的陈述、保证或协议。除非经书面同意，任何对协议条件和条款的修改、增加和放弃对任何一方都无约束力。

12.8 本协议附件与本协议条款具有同等的法律效力。

本协议附件清单如下：

附件一、买价及支付方式

附件二、上海______________有限公司债务清单

附件三、上海______________有限公司资产清单

附件四、 股东会决议

签署日期：

附件四： 股东会决议

股东会决议

上海______________有限公司全体股东：_______、_______、_______、_______

谨此决议：

一致同意_____________将所持有的上海____________有限公司___________（百分之_____）的股权转让给_____________。

全体股东签署：

_______________、_______________、_______________、_______________

日期：______年______月______日

The debate in California over how owners can use LLCs to obscure their identities

In one high-profile L.A. case, there's been a long-running dispute about the true owner of a massive home being built in Bel-Air by developer Mohamed Hadid. The site is owned by 901 Strada LLC, an entity that lists no owner.

 (Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times)

James Rufus Koren

Delaware and Nevada aren't the only states where it's possible to set up a company without saying who owns it.

In California, too, owners can set up a limited liability company, or LLC, without telling state officials who's behind the curtain.

That anonymity has come under close scrutiny since the release this week of the so-called Panama Papers, which revealed that dozens of global politicians hid assets in offshore shell companies set up by a Panamanian law firm.

And it's been an issue of debate in Los Angeles, where wealthy investors have acquired high-priced real estate through LLCs that have obscured their identity.

Attorneys who work in the field argue that an individual's investments aren't a matter of public record and that LLCs can serve legitimate purposes. For instance, a celebrity might buy a house through an LLC to make it more difficult for fans — or haters — to find their address.

That anonymity is also just a step or two removed from one of the main benefits limited liability companies and corporations were created to provide: a legal separation between a business and the personal assets of an investor.

But Heather Lowe, legal counsel for Washington advocacy group Global Financial Integrity, said LLCs and shell companies often are used to obfuscate the source of ill-gotten cash or cover up illegal activity.

"They're used to do the illegal things," Lowe said. "The idea is to try to separate the criminal from the crime, and that's what they're used for."

In California, perhaps the easiest way to set up an anonymous firm is to create a limited liability company, one of the most common types of business entities.

Nikole Zoumberakis, an associate at downtown L.A. law firm Buchalter Nemer, said in California, like in most other states, officials do not require a list of the company's owners.

"You don't have to tell the state who the owners of that LLC are," Zoumberakis said. "The state of California does not know who the owners of a California LLC are if the owners don't want them to know."

This anonymity is little different than the relative anonymity afforded to owners of other assets. Publicly traded companies, for example, have to report their largest shareholders, but not every person who owns shares.

"The fact that someone has a financial interest in a company shouldn't necessarily be public information," Zoumberakis said. "Whether you own stock in a small, private LLC or you own stock in an entity that's traded on the Nasdaq or the New York Stock Exchange, it's not a matter of public record."

That's not to say there's complete anonymity.

Sam Mahood, a spokesman for the California Secretary of State's office, which registers business entities, said LLCs are required to maintain their own ownership information and include it with state and federal tax filings.

But those documents, unlike corporate registration filings, aren't public, leaving those interested in finding a company's true owners out of luck.

Some LLCs do list their owners, but those owners are sometimes other LLCs or other types of corporate entities. Paul Graney, a partner at accounting firm Marcum, said that's another reason it can be difficult to figure out who really owns a company.

"You could set up a string of five, six, seven LLCs in different states," Graney said. "It's going to be hard to trace all the way through. Where does the shell game finally stop?"

In one high-profile L.A. case, there's been a long-running dispute about the true owner of a massive home being built in Bel-Air by developer Mohamed Hadid. The site is owned by 901 Strada LLC, an entity that lists no owner.

The lack of public information about company ownerships could frustrate attempts to rein in the ability of such businesses to operate.

This week, U.S. Treasury Department officials noted that they have been working on a rule that would require banks to know the owners of all companies they do business with. The rule would aim to put banks in the position of ensuring anonymous companies aren't owned by criminals or being used to launder money.

But D.E. Wilson, a partner at law firm Venable and former Treasury Department attorney, said banks might balk at having to verify company ownership when there's no way to do so through state records.

"There's no way for the bank to verify that the information provided is correct," he said. "The bank is going to say, 'Who owns it?' We'll say, 'We do.' They'll say, 'Show me some evidence.' It's not clear what that will be beyond the statement of the person opening the bank account."

james.koren@latimes.com