© 2024 Lloyd & Mousilli. All rights reserved.
Licensed in California, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Texas, Washington, the District of Columbia, and before the USPTO.
University of California, Hastings College of the Law
City University of New York, Hunter College
The rich text element
As the 3rd employee at a FinTech startup and the direct policy advisor to the CEO, he became proficient in legal risk assessment. He received traditional legal training under qualified lawyers while working as a paralegal in Queens, New York.
The rich text element allows you to create and format headings, paragraphs, blockquotes, images, and video all in one place instead of having to add and format them individually. Just double-click and easily create content.
A rich text element can be used with static or dynamic content. For static content, just drop it into any page and begin editing. For dynamic content, add a rich text field to any collection and then connect a rich text element to that field in the settings panel. Voila!
Headings, paragraphs, blockquotes, figures, images, and figure captions can all be styled after a class is added to the rich text element using the "When inside of" nested selector system.
As the 3rd employee at a FinTech startup and the direct policy advisor to the CEO, he became proficient in legal risk assessment. He received traditional legal training under qualified lawyers while working as a paralegal in Queens, New York.
There are two important takeaways from my first week at Lloyd & Mousilli that I will reflect upon in this entry and hopefully look back on whenever I struggle with delivering quality work in a timely fashion. My initial reaction to the first few days of work was absolute joy and excitement at the clients and scope of work I would get to do for these clients. My main goal of becoming a lawyer was to help creators and innovators take their products to the broadest range of consumers. In the past week I have been fortunate to work with clients from different industries and at very different stages of their business development. Beyond just the opportunity to work with these innovative clients, I am extremely excited by the work I have had the opportunity to do on behalf of these clients, which has included researching trade policies in Sudan, special status awarded to end-to-end encrypted services and learn the basics of trademark law. However, the my most interesting and helpful experience in the first week has been learning from Feras Mousilli ways to take my legal research and advice and turn it into business advice for the clients. I am humbled by the trust put in interns at the firm, and strongly believe that this trust will help me develop critical thinking in terms of providing clients with advice on how particular legal issues will affect their business.
The second takeaway from my first week is applicable to working at this firm, but I believe more indicative of the responsibilities of attorney’s and their supporting team. I have found myself working on more than one assignment at a time, and have had to learn to prioritize my time. However this has also forced me to make more of an effort to reach out to others at the firm, especially James and Megan, and be more open with them about my struggles with managing multiple assignments. The result has been a stronger relationship with the rest of the team, but also a better understanding of how these veterans of the firm prioritize their tasks. I hope that by the end of the summer I am confident in my own ability to prioritize tasks on a daily basis and to be equally confident in my ability to analyze the impact of a particular policy on a business.
During my fourth week, I had several firsts. I got my first litigation assignment from Lema, the first set of privacy policies I’ve contributed to, and my first time witnessing the entire process of filing for a trademark.
My first task this week, which also took me a whole week to work on, was to draft a memo on the 5Circuit’s position on Texas’ anti-SLAPP law, the Texas Citizens Participation Act. The purpose of the memo was to determine whether Lema needs to be concerned about the opposing party filing a motion to dismiss under this state anti-SLAPP law. This was an interesting memo to draft due to the drastic differences in precedent for anti-SLAPP laws in different circuits. It was really rewarding to get into the weeds of the legal arguments for the two Texas defamation cases that currently are the precedent for Fifth Circuit because it pushed me to refresh my knowledge of the Erie Doctrine. While learning about the Erie Doctrine in Civil Procedure, I always struggled to determine whether a law was procedural or a policy that would impact the outcome of a specific case. Reading the court’s opinion in Klocke v. Watson helped greatly with that confusion. While working on this assignment I also realized that even though I have struggled with the FRCP and that has contributed towards my lack of enthusiasm for litigation, I have still benefited greatly from studying caselaw in this area. The complex arguments made in landmark civil procedure cases are great practice to improve my ability to synthesize complex commercial clauses and determine their actual impact on clients. This was a time consuming assignment but I think the return on this assignment for me was equally rewarding since I was able to improve my understanding of limitations on free speech with relation to slander and corporate strategies of using both SLAPP and anti-SLAPP laws to attack critics.
Determining the reason for the USPTO to reject DiversePro’s trademark application for the slogan, The Lawyer for You. The only challenge for this specific the assignment was figuring out which of the notice posted on USPTO’s TESS website was the most recent notice of action. The past two weeks I have said to James several times that trademark assignments feel really challenging sometimes because the solutions and answers are straightforward and repetitive. I have doubted myself several times before reporting back to James the reason for the rejection because the USPTO only said that the specimen looked like it was done in an editing software. I understood that this meant that all we would need to do to respond to this rejection would be to submit another specimen with the screenshot of the whole website because James had shown me what the typical response to a similar action looks like earlier that very day.
Drafting the privacy policies and OSS notice for Yotascale was a really exciting assignment because I learnt about what the default go to font should be for any assignment for the client. This knowledge is going to be very helpful in the coming weeks since Megan won’t have to constantly change the fonts of anything I send to her before sending to Feras. However even more importantly I learnt to use existing firm templates to create new policies for our clients. I tried to create the privacy policies from scratch, and then I used a generic template builder website. Both approaches resulted in sub-par results. I was originally reluctant to use the existing firm template because the template was for an entirely different business. However upon reading the template more carefully, and reading other sample privacy policies, I realized that I was complicating it more than needed. I was able to produce a presentable draft by taking the existing template, and focusing on how Yotascale’s business model can potentially infringe their user’s data privacy under the CCPA. This allowed me to hone in on the specific clauses in the template, namely use of data, storage of data, and procedures for deleting former consumer’s data.
Improve at prioritizing, not just daily assignments but even while working on trademarks or contracts. I realized this week that often the solution for some issues is straightforward and I must trust myself to identify those situations. If I had put this advice into practice this week, I would have been able to produce a significantly better first draft of the OSS notice for Yotascale because I would have not wasted so much time trying to draft their privacy policies from scratch. I also would spent half the amount of time on the trademark assignment since I would have been able to realize that there was only one relevant paragraph in the entire USPTO Office Action document for James’ specific question.
This week, more than any other, feels like it deserves a journal entry as I experienced the hurt that comes with a client flat out rejecting your work. While challenging at first, the rejection was a wonderful lesson in reminding myself that despite my confidence in my work-product, its the client’s needs and preferences that take precedence.
I started off this week by reviewing an agency agreement that I was tasked to rewrite during my first week at L&M. My task was to flag any terms that would be a cause for concern for our client now or in the future. While I was disappointed to return to that document due to its poor drafting, I was not surprised since the client had shown reluctance throughout last week over using the agreement we drafted for the client over the agency’s agreement. However, as I mentioned earlier, the goal is to always produce the best work that fits what the client wants. Once in this mindset, the assignment became a lot more interesting since it gave me the opportunity to utilize what I have learnt over the past few weeks at firm and identify the practical business implications of each of the poorly worded clause. I also think that this assignment was a wonderful bonding experience for Megan and I, as I did not hesitate to send her slack message every time I got frustrated with the ambiguity of the language used. It was also a great learning experience to see the language Feras used while communicating with the client since it was direct and respectful, while still clearly getting through the firm’s position on the matter.
I am really starting to enjoy and relate more to my work since I have the opportunity to do multiple assignments for the same clients. I also realized that gaining familiarity with a client and their product helps me feel more invested in the client and the work I produce for them. I aided Megan in drafting the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy for a client’s website. Last week we had drafted the EULA and Privacy Policy for the core products so I was familiar with their business. This made it easier to identify the issues in their existing policies, and rewrite them to ensure that they remain compliant with the CCPA and other relevant privacy laws. I took the advice I gave myself last week in trusting my analysis more, and also not being afraid of asking questions. This assignment took me significantly less time than similar ones in the past weeks because I reached out to Megan and we discussed how their website had no real interactive components, thus making both their Terms of Use and Privacy Policy very straightforward. We also had a productive conversation about the difference between ‘Terms of Use’ and ‘Terms of Service’. At the end the discussion I realized ‘Terms of Use’ for a website are always more straightforward than ‘Terms of Service’ since most websites without interactive components use similar terms without the need for specific terms addressing any unique service they provide on their website. It was also a very gratifying assignment as a law student since I had the opportunity to contribute towards an aspect of a website that every non-legal person would joke about never reading.
One of the most challenging areas within the corporate practice for me has been analyzing and editing financial documents. This trend continued this week as I encountered ‘Dynamic Equity’ agreements for the first time. I realize that one of the issues with the documents is that most guides available on the internet today assume some form of savviness on the reader's part in terms of their knowledge about these complex equity arrangements within startups. This is highly unfortunate because while I will be fortunate enough to gain familiarity with these agreements after working with them for several different clients, new founders, especially those focused more on their products rather than the financial aspects of their startups, will have a difficult time finding helpful resources online. This realization helped me understand what the goal for me should be each time I write an article for the website, and also the core purpose of the website itself, to provide founders with minimal knowledge of these issues, information relevant to them in a manner that is understandable for them.
Ask more questions about the clients to avoid producing work that while good on the surface does not fully address the client’s needs. I also realized that if I ask either Megan or James for more work, they will give it to me. To be more specific, I am more confident now in suggesting to either of them additional components that I could work on to make the overall assignment more helpful for the client and would address questions or needs they may most likely have in the future either way.
The highlight of my week was discussing in great length the differences between a burger and sushi. I also learnt two very important things while arguing why burgers are nothing like sushi; 1) Trademark Office Actions are really interesting because they require a fair balance of legal arguments rooted in black letter law and practical arguments rooted in consumer behavior and other business considerations, 2) Prior to spending hours formulating complex trademark arguments, it is always a good practice to check whether the registered trademark in dispute is even in use anymore.
I started my week redlining my first Independent Contractor Agreement. The ICA did not require extensive redlining so a majority of my time was spent fixing the formatting so that it would be easier for Feras and other attorneys to edit. I also created a document comparing this specific client ICA with the firm’s ICA template. This was a relatively quick task because I had some experience working on ICAs last semester during the In-House GC class and most ICAs have pretty standard terms. However one thing I realized while working on this assignment is that I want to improve my understanding of IP assignment rights. The IP assignment clause in the client’s ICA was extremely thorough, and more extensive than the L&M template, however I was unable to make the call on whether that clause in the client’s ICA was unnecessarily complex or whether the L&M’s template needs to be updated. Fortunately, I will be starting work on a specific patent assignment agreement next week which will help me gain a deeper understanding of the issue and identify what clauses are necessary within an ICA.
I responded to an Office Action for one of our clients whose trademark application got rejected the first time due to issues with the specimen. The office action itself was less than a page of writing, however the research for this assignment took me about 6 hours. This was the first Office Action that I was working on where we were not directly challenging the Examining Attorney’s claim, but rather rectifying an issue that he raised with the specimens. Another time-consuming aspect about the research for this Office Action was figuring out whether attorney’s can file declarations on behalf of their client attesting to the fact that the mark was in use for five years. The specific issue here was the vagueness of the answers available online, including the USPTO’s website. It was also confusing the determine the exact language to be used in a declaration made by an attorney on behalf of the client. Even though James reached out to the client, in the end we determined that an attorney can make such a declaration. Also hearing from James the way most Examining Attorney’s respond to office actions, I am confident that the Examining Attorney would have given us the opportunity to rectify the confusion since there is plenty of evidence to back our understanding of who can sign such declarations.
The second Office Action I worked on this week required me to draft a section discussing the differences between sushi and burgers to prove that the are different goods being served to different consumers. This was a really fun assignment because I got to research case law that went into the nuances of what differentiates two goods from each other if they are both technically a part of the same ‘industry’ or ‘class of goods’. My initial issue with the Office Action was the Examining Attorney specifically highlighting that extensive evidence was not permitted and then introducing extensive evidence herself in the form of the registrants menu, which also included burgers. However, I made the argument that based solely on the material submitted during the application, there is sufficient difference between Goku’s Sushi and Goku Burger since sushi and burger are two very different types of food. This was a fun and interesting exercise that ended in James realizing that we might also be able to claim that the mark is not in use anymore. Hearing from James that we have such an option helped filled a gap in my personal trademark knowledge since I flagged to him that another Office Action we worked on also had a similar issue of one of the registrants not actively using the mark anymore.
While most trademark research and responses are deeply engaging experiences, I want to make sure not to spend several hours formulating an argument against a mark that could simply be invalided due to it not being in use. I think from now on a good practice I am going to incorporate is making sure before responding to any Office Action to conduct thorough research on the registered mark and ensure that it is valid.
The highlight of my week was working with Megan and James on a response to a cease & desist notice to a client. This was perhaps also perhaps the highlight of my externship so far because I got to apply my knowledge about employment contracts while working under a crunch deadline and produce a final letter that was a product of extensive collaboration between the three of us. I can say without a doubt it felt like a true ‘lawyer’ moment, and I can only hope for many more like this during the externship. While I cannot wish for either of them to be in such a stressful situation again, I am certain that they will be probably by Monday (or even during the weekend).
My first task this week was preparing a short memo outlining the response to a notice of copyright rejection for a client’s book, originally published in Syria. This assignment exposed me to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act which created uniform norms and rules for copyright protection globally. The memo included the requirements to apply for copyright protection for the book under the URAA, which only requires filling a form and submitting the physical copy of the book. The USPTO could have made accessing this information a lot more easier but I finally realized that a big reason why trademark and other IP assignments can be so stressful is because how poorly the USPTO organizes its information, and the overall ambiguity in the different sections of the TMEP.
I finally finished preparing the template for Patent Broker Agreements. This assignment was challenging because despite having taken a couple of classes on patents, I am not fully comfortable understanding the technical aspects of patents, and how those technical aspects need to be reflected in any form of patent sale/licensing agreement. Working on an article for the recent rise in AI patent applications was helpful for this assignment because I had a better understanding of how patent protection fits into the investment strategy for VCs and bigger tech companies. I was also rewarded for taking so long on this assignment later in the week while helping with the cease-and-desist assignment I mentioned.
Onto the highlight of my week, yesterday James messaged me asking me to analyze the employment contract for a client’s previous employer who had sent the client a cease-and-desist letter on the basis on the confidentiality and non-compete clauses of his employment contract. The assignment needed to be finished by the end of the day, and it was the first time I was drafting a response letter for a client. Prior to this all my client-facing work has been drafting either contracts or office actions. The biggest challenge was not getting tricked by the opposing counsel’s baseless allegations that he framed as being rooted in client’s violation of his employment agreement. Having read several patent licensing agreements over the past few days I was able to, along with James, identify how the opposing counsel was also trying to create new IP rights for his clients that could not be backed by any material evidence. It was also really helpful to get feedback from James and Meghan on the appropriate tone for a letter of this nature.
Ask for more assignments and you shall receive them. I need to get out of my shell more at the firm because I get rewarded every time I reach out and ask for an assignment. Today I get rewarded with helping a client close an entire deal. Very excited to work on it this weekend!
This week I learnt to trust my own research and to recognize that attorneys make mistakes as well. On a more positive note, I also realized the solution to avoiding basic mistakes is being open to rely on your colleagues for feedback.
I started this week conducting research for Shivani into the requirements for bylaws for a company incorporated in Delaware. Specifically we were looking into the topic of the mechanism to fix the number of board members. The boilerplate template used in the firm failed to mention a specific number or a mechanism to pick that number. I started off by reading the specific code that dictates bylaws. The language is a bit unnecessarily convoluted but it still states the requirements in pretty simple terms. The initial research led me to the conclusion that the firm’s templates are incorrect and need to be amended. However I am still not confident to make such an assertion based simply on my own interpretation of a law. Even though Shivani confirmed my interpretation as well, just to be more thorough, I used WestLaw and UpCounsel to see if they have a more in-depth analysis on the matter. Fortunately, there were plenty of resources on the subject, and they further confirmed my initial interpretation. While this was a great learning experience, I think it was more gratifying to then work with Shivani to immediately come up with a solution on amending these bylaws in a way to preserve the flexibility that was intended by the initial omission of the fixed number of board members in the bylaws. The solution we came up with was fixing the number of board members to 3 initially in the bylaws and inserting language that would allow for the number to be changed through resolutions.
It was great to get hands on with the Trademark Trello board and list out all the open office actions and the action needed for each of these open office actions. This gave me the opportunity to quickly browse through over 15 applications and identify the missing documents. It was great practice in learning more about the firm's clients. Unfortunately James and me again came across applications that had some clerical errors. While on the corporate side, Shivani and me were able to come up with a solution to correct past errors, James and me were left limited options in terms of amending these clerical errors. Fortunately we were able to identify the root cause of some of these clerical errors immediately since it appeared as though not enough time was spent understanding the client’s product product. From day one my goal has been to be learn more about our client’s products for my own intellectual curiosity but also to make sure that I can draft the most accurate and effective documents for the clients. This was a perfect example of how taking the time to initially understand the client’s product better would allow me, or anyone else filing trademark applications to identify their class of goods more appropriately.
Ask colleagues and supervisors to check, and double check any document that needs to be sent to the client or submitting on behalf of the client. James and me were able to get through several applications because we could count on each other to catch any error the other would make so as to avoid having to proof-read the documents ourselves multiple times and still risk missing something. Another thing, if you’re in doubt about the format or content of a document you are working on or have been asked to proof-read, it never hurts to do a simple google search to make sure that it is accurate. This will save you and the attorney a lot time in the future.