Richard Burt Professional Law Corporation

In communicating through a website with a lawyer you are thinking of hiring, you should not provide any confidential information concerning your legal matter until an attorney-client relationship has been formed.

Sending an email to Richard Burt or leaving a voice mail for him or his assistant (and a reply from either) does not create an attorney-client relationship.

No attorney-client relationship will be formed until you and Mr. Burt have agreed that he should represent you, he has determined that there is no conflict with an existing client, you have signed an engagement letter that sets forth the terms of the representation, and, when requested, you have made a fee deposit.

Please note that the initial consultation is solely to determine the nature of your legal matter and to discuss fees. Mr. Burt does not offer free legal advice.

After an attorney-client relationship has been formed, email (and voice mail) may of course be freely used for confidential attorney-client communications.

If we try to call you at a telephone number that you provide to us and are unable to reach you (and your voice mail is full or is not set up), we may text you at that number to let you know that we tried to call you. By sending an email via this website or by calling and leaving a voice-mail message, you consent to receiving such texts. At any time, you may reply STOP to opt-out from further messages.

NOTE: Mr. Burt does not handle litigation of any kind. If you wish to sue someone, are being sued, or need to make a court filing of any kind, Mr. Burt cannot help you. You should not contact him for those services.

Send an email to Richard Burt now
Here's an alt tag for the image: `AV Peer Review Rated, Richard G. Burt, 2010`
Here's an alt tag for the image in under 8 words: Avvo Rating: Richard Gary Burt, Top Attorney 10.0

Securities Law

Individualized Promissory Note Held Not To Be a Security

03/10/2017

The following is the text of an e-bulletin that I authored and that was published by the Corporations Committee of the Business Law Section of the State Bar of California. In People v. Black (Feb. 16, 2017), the court of…

Read More

Bank CD’s not covered by Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998

03/25/2014

In Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice (U.S. Supreme Court February 26, 2014), the Supreme Court held that bank CD’s not traded on national securities exchange are not a “covered security” and therefore a class action based on fraud in connection…

Read More

Third-Party Liability for Securities Fraud

07/02/2013

In some cases, a service provider associated with a business, such as an accountant, banker, broker, or lawyer, can be held liable for untruths or omissions made by the business in connection with the sale of stock (or other securities,…

Read More

Ex-CFO Allowed to Sue for Defamatory Innuendo in Press Release

10/10/2012

In Hawran v. Hixson (2012), the court allowed a CFO who had resigned from a public company to sue the company and certain directors because the company’s press release implied that he had engaged in misconduct. Sequenom was a publicly…

Read More

Zalkind v. Ceradyne, Inc.

06/01/2011

In Zalkind v. Ceradyne, Inc. (2011) 194 Cal. App. 4th 1010, Ceradyne, Inc. (Ceradyne), entered into an asset purchase agreement (asset purchase agreement) with Stanley and Elizabeth Zalkind (the Zalkinds) and Quest Technology, LP (Quest), a limited partnership owned by…

Read More