Trump’s Revised Travel Ban Blocked by Honolulu Judge

On March 6, 2017 President Trump issued his second executive order to-date, banning foreigners from six Muslim-majority countries from traveling to the U.S. The new executive order, which was due to go into effect on March 15, was a revised version of Trump’s first travel ban, which he rescinded after questions of its adherence to the U.S. Constitution were addressed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Just hours before the second travel ban was to go into effect, a district judge in Honolulu issued a temporary restraining order to block the president’s revised executive order.

Honolulu Judge Blocks Trump’s Second Travel Ban

lady justice statueOn Wednesday, March 15th, 2017 Judge Derrick K. Watson of the United States District Court in Honolulu blocked the nationwide implementation of President Trump’s new travel ban. The revised ban—which included a 90 day freeze on issuing visas to people from Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Syria (among other restrictions)—was due to go into effect just hours after the federal judge halted the order. American citizen Ismail Elshikh and the state of Hawaii brought the case to the district court, contending that national security was a thin pretext for a travel ban that was based, at least in part, on a discriminatory intent.

Religious Discrimination Inherent in Trump’s Travel Ban

Trump’s first travel ban—which included a travel block of people from Iraq as well as an indefinite ban of Syrian refugees into the United States—prioritized immigrants facing religious persecution. Because the ban targeted Muslim-majority countries, opponents argued this exemption was tantamount to religious discrimination. The Trump administration claimed that the revisions to the executive order rendered the newest iteration religiously neutral, but because of its continued targeting of immigrants from Muslim-majority countries the Hawaii district court disagreed.

The record before this Court is unique. It includes significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related predecessor.

While the government suggested courts should focus solely on the explicit text of the order and not look at other evidence of intent, Judge Watson concluded that the president’s own statements clearly supported an explicit bias against Muslim immigrants.

The Government appropriately cautions that, in determining purpose, courts should not look into the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government decisionmakers and may not undertake a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.” … The Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry. For instance, there is nothing “veiled” about this press release: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

According to the The Washington Post, recent government reports also undermine the stated purpose of the executive order. One report from the Department of Homeland Security found that the majority of foreign-born terrorists likely adopted their extreme ideology after entering the U.S., not before. The second shows that the highest risk of foreign terrorism is likely to come from countries not included in Trump’s travel ban. Judge Watson concluded that:

Any reasonable, objective observer would conclude, as does the Court for purposes of the instant Motion for TRO, that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at the very least, “secondary to a religious objective” of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims.

Citing Judge Watson’s detailed decision, Judge Theodore Chuang of Maryland also issued a preliminary injunction of Trump’s travel ban, stating:

[Judge Watson’s] statements, which include explicit, direct statements of President Trump’s animus toward Muslims and intention to impose a ban on Muslims entering the United States, present a convincing case that the first executive order was issued to accomplish, as nearly as possible, President Trump’s promised Muslim ban. In particular, the direct statements by President Trump and (former New York City Mayor Rudy) Giuliani’s account of his conversations with President Trump reveal that the plan had been to bar the entry of nationals of predominantly Muslim countries deemed to constitute dangerous territory in order to approximate a Muslim ban without calling it one precisely the form of the travel ban in the first executive order.
While President Trump has vowed to fight these decisions all the way to the Supreme Court, only time will tell what’s in store for the administration’s failed attempts to enact a travel ban.

What Repeal of DACA Could Mean for U.S. Economy

Six years ago, President Barack Obama signed the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) into law, giving hundreds of thousands of young adults who were brought into the United States as children a chance to live a normal life. Those who applied for DACA status and met the requirements were able to go to college, legally work, and get driver licenses to allow them to come out of hiding and become productive residents of the United States without fear of deportation. Now, under the Trump administration, undocumented immigrants, including these young adults and their parents, could lose their right to work legally in this country and countless families could be torn apart. What many fail to realize, though, is that if President-elect Trump makes good on the promise he made to his voters, the U.S. economy will also suffer because of it.

The Economics of Immigration

If DACA is repealed, almost 645,000 undocumented immigrants will lose their right to work in the United States. Businesses would be legally obligated to immediately terminate workers who are undocumented. This would mean having to find and train new employees to fill these job vacancies. According to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in San Francisco, this could possibly cost businesses up to $3.4 billion dollars.

Social security card applicationHowever, it is not just the cost to businesses that could cause major setbacks if immigrants lose DACA status; there are additional implications to the economy. The U.S. would also lose the tax revenue that comes from the undocumented workers protected by DACA. This means diminished contributions to Medicare and Social Security (losses totaling roughly $4.6 billion and $19.9 billion respectively). These programs are already struggling; the loss of immigrant contributions could mean reducing payments to many elderly citizens who rely on them to live.

If you are currently protected by DACA, it is important to be informed about how potential changes to U.S. immigration law may affect your immigration status. The attorneys of Brownstein & Nguyen are on your side. Contact us for legal assistance with your Atlanta immigration case.

3 Takeaways from the 9th Circuit Court’s Executive Order Ruling

The states of Washington and Minnesota (later joined by 17 more states) filed a lawsuit against President Trump’s recent executive order banning entry into the United States by citizens of 7 majority Muslim countries, claiming the ban harms the interests of the states, their citizens and legal residents. On February 9, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously voted to uphold federal district judge Robart’s temporary block of President Trump’s administration ban. What does this decision mean for U.S. citizens, refugees, and immigrants?

Upholding Checks and Balances

judge's gavelThe administration argued that the judiciary branch should defer completely to the executive branch on orders purportedly affecting national security, primarily because the court is not aware of pertinent classified information that only the president knows. In upholding lower court’s decision, the appeals court rejected this argument, affirming that under the U.S. constitution the courts play a critical role in acting as a check on the power of the executive branch, including immigration matters.

[T]he Government has taken the position that the President’s decision about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. . . There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy. . . [T]he Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context.

Right to Due Process

The 9th Circuit also held that the states showed a likelihood of success on their contention that the immigration ban violates due process rights afforded to non-citizens as well as U.S. born citizens, naturalized citizens, green card and visa holders.

The procedural protections provided by the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause are not limited to citizens. Rather, they “appl[y] to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens,” regardless of “whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” . . . These rights also apply to certain aliens attempting to re-enter the United States after traveling abroad.

No Need for Immediate Action

While the Trump administration claimed that the immigration ban was a pressing matter of national security, the 9th Circuit court held that the administration failed to present evidence supporting the immediate need for the order. The court also considered evidence presented by the states that doing so could harm U.S. interests and those of its citizens and legal residents.

[T]he public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. . . [T]he public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this; when considered alongside the hardships discussed above, these competing public interests do not justify a stay.

After initially seeking reconsideration by the full 9th Circuit, yesterday the Trump administration withdrew its request and told the court it would rescind the travel ban, a complete victory for the states. The president has promised to issue a new executive order soon that complies with the law. The states, immigration advocates and affected families and individual will be watching, ready to challenge the president again if he oversteps his authority.

The attorneys at Brownstein & Nguyen have decades of experience with immigration cases in Atlanta. Contact us to evaluate your immigration case today.

How to Protect Yourself When Doing Business with Family

There are numerous legal hurdles associated with startups. Many entrepreneurs lack the legal knowledge or counsel to successfully navigate the most common pitfalls, especially when it comes to their blind spots: friends and family. Involving friends and family members in a new business venture can give it the financial boost needed to succeed, but it can also cause legal problems down the line. Are you covering the legal bases to protect your business and preserve relationships down the road?

Co-Founding a Business with Family and Friends

business agreementWhen working with people they know, many entrepreneurs skip the appropriate contracts and agreements, instead choosing to rely on personal feelings and blind trust to protect the company. (“Joe would never do anything to hurt me. We are family, and will always look out for each other.”) But when there’s no written contract or legal agreement, it’s easy for bad blood to arise. When co-founding a business with friends or family members, make sure you determine in writing:

  • The long term goals of the business and how those will be achieved
  • The roles/responsibilities of each founder for the business
  • The expectations for each founder’s investment of time and capital (upfront and later)
  • Starting salaries and how you will determine raises (both for partners and for future employees)
  • The process of making key decisions
  • What percentage of the company each founder will own, and whether that percentage is subject to change
  • What steps to take if one business partner isn’t investing time or resources according to expectations
  • How to approach the sale of the company
  • Steps to take in case of legal disputes

Raising Startup Capital

Entrepreneurs often turn to the people closest to them when raising funds to start a business. Family and friends are an easy source of funding, but there are numerous pitfalls associated with raising startup capital from people in your inner circle.

  • 90% of new companies fail during the financing stage, and 60% after receiving financing. Many entrepreneurs don’t appropriately convey the downfalls when seeking funding from family and friends.
  • Many people aren’t knowledgeable enough to determine if they’re making a good investment or a bad investment, and a familial connection muddies these waters. Entrepreneurs should take care not to fall into the trap of over-valuation of stock.
  • During the financing stage, many businesses don’t have set governance or corporate structure to determine how they’ll use the raised capital.

Entrepreneurs often fall into another pitfall when seeking funding from family and friends: ignoring legal requirements. The sale of stock, LLC interests, and limited partnership interests are subject to securities laws and other legal requirements. Failure to adhere to these requirements can result in hefty fines, even if the company has foundered. Before selling stock to family and friends, entrepreneurs should:

  • Comply with federal and state regulations for disclosure, filing, and form requirements.
  • Fully understand any exemptions (e.g. private issuer exemptions, business associates exemptions, accredited investor exemptions, etc).
  • Report all exemptions appropriately and within the required time period.

Avoid the potential pitfalls of starting a business by seeking legal counsel from Brownstein & Nguyen LLC.

Business Agreement

Current Statistics on Vietnamese Immigration

Vietnamese immigration has been steadily increasing in the US since the end of the Vietnam War, when a wave of refugees began seeking residence in America. In 1980, 231,000 Vietnamese immigrants resided in the United States; by 2014, that number had increased to roughly 1.3 million. The United States receives over 80% more immigrants from Vietnam than any other country, and 3% of the overall lawful permanent residents in the US are from Vietnam, making Vietnamese immigrants the sixth largest immigrant population in the country.

Emigrating to the United States

vietnamese immigrantAt Brownstein & Nguyen LLC, we handle worldwide immigration cases, helping migrants from various economic, social, and cultural backgrounds find new homes in the United States. Our practice has helped people relocate to the US from Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan, Morocco, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Taiwan, Denmark, China, Brazil, Columbia, the United Kingdom, the Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Italy, Kenya, Israel, and a variety of other countries. Many of our Vietnamese immigrant clients enter the US with green cards sponsored by family members who are citizens or lawful permanent residents. Others obtain temporary visas so that they can work or attend school while awaiting the resolution of their permanent residency petition. As a whole, lawful Vietnamese immigrants have higher incomes and lower poverty rates than other foreign-born US residents.

Vietnamese Immigrants in America

America is a land of opportunity, and our law offices have helped Vietnamese immigrants permanently relocate to all 50 states, including Alaska and Hawaii, and even to US territory in the North Pole. California draws the largest percentage of Vietnamese green card holders, with almost 40% of immigrants relocating there. Atlanta, Georgia has the 9th densest population of Vietnamese immigrants of U.S. metropolitan areas. Approximately 29,000 Vietnamese immigrants have relocated from Vietnam to Atlanta or the nearby suburban areas of Sandy Springs and Roswell. A recent overview of the Vietnamese immigrant population by The Migration Institute found that, overall, Vietnamese immigrants to the US were:

  • 17% less likely than other foreign immigrants to be proficient at English
  • Older than native and foreign-born populations in the US with an average age of 47
  • 4% less likely to achieve a Bachelor’s Degree or higher by age 25 than other foreign-born residents, and 5% less likely to achieve a Bachelor’s Degree or higher than native US residents
  • More likely to participate in the civilian labor force than native-born citizens or other immigrants
  • Earners of higher incomes than other members of the population, with a median household income of $59,933 (as of 2014)
  • 5% less likely to live in poverty than other immigrants and 1% less likely to live in poverty than native-born US citizens
  • 29% more likely than the overall US immigrant population to become naturalized citizens

Are you a Vietnamese citizen seeking a US green card or visa? Contact Brownstein & Nguyen law offices to handle your immigration case.

Vietnamese Woman

Immigrant Parents of Citizen Children

Family ties make for strong bonds, not just emotionally but legally as well. Spouses, fiancés, parents, and children can sponsor a loved one for a green card, expediting the process of legal residence. But gaining lawful residence is more complicated than simply having kids on American soil, and undocumented parents of citizen children have a difficult path to achieving legal status.

Can Citizen Children Sponsor Immigrant Parents?

Short answer? Yes. But there is a long list of caveats and legal hurdles.

parent and child holding handsToday, the United States is home to 5.3 million children with undocumented parents. Of these children, roughly 4.5 million are citizens of the United States. A recent study by the Migration Policy Institute examined the ramifications that parental deportation has on U.S. born children. Kids with deported parents often end up living with friends or relatives, or placed in foster care. These children often face emotional, educational, and developmental difficulties. Parental deportation can also limit children’s access to healthcare and economic benefits. So what options do families have if the parents does not have legal status in the U.S.?

President Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of American (DAPA) proposed a temporary reprieve for parents of lawful U.S. residents who fit certain qualifications. However, the Supreme Court’s recent decision not to uphold executive action extending DAPA leaves many undocumented parents at a loss. Sponsoring a parent for legal status is more difficult than sponsoring a spouse or child. A U.S. citizen must be at least 21 years of age to petition for a parent, and the parent must also comply with U.S. requirements for a green card. The child must be able to financially support the parent, and the parent must not have over 180 days of unlawful residence in the U.S., or they become inadmissible for a period of up to ten years.

Legal Options for Undocumented Parents

Immigration matters are complicated issues, especially for undocumented parents of U.S. citizens for whom deportation can have significant consequences. Parents of legal U.S. residents who entered the U.S. lawfully may apply for an extended work visa. Undocumented parents of American citizens can apply for cancellation of removal if they face deportation. Unlawful residents may have other legal routes open to them based on their specific cases.

Brownstein & Nguyen has decades of experience handling complicated immigration cases. As an immigrant herself, Tien Nguyen has both personal and professional insight into the U.S. immigration system, and uses these insights to aggressively and effectively advocate for her clients. Contact Brownstein & Nguyen Law for an evaluation of your immigration case.


Benefits of an LLC vs. Sole Proprietorship

To be successful, entrepreneurs should familiarize themselves with various aspects of business and law. Contract basics, vicarious liability, and other areas of business law can make or break your business down the road. Before diving into a new venture, however, entrepreneurs must first consider which type of legal ownership structure best suits their business needs. Often, this means choosing between individual ownership and a limited liability company (LLC), partnership or other legal entity.

Sole Proprietorship v. LLC

business woman with filesA sole proprietorship is the simplest way to start a business. You simply make sure to have all necessary governmental licenses or permits, personally obtain any necessary financing, and get to work. All the assets and contracts of the business (such as leases) are placed in your personal name.

On the other hand, creating a limited liability company requires a little more effort. Forming an LLC begins by reserving a name with the Secretary of State’s office, creating and filing articles of organization, and paying a filing fee (typically several hundred dollars). LLCs with multiple members should seek qualified legal advice on drafting an operating agreement to protect all of the owners and the company in the future. LLCs must be sure to carefully maintain corporate records and not to co-mingle business and personal assets and finances in order to protect the owners from personal liability in the event someone contests their LLC status. LLCs must also file separate tax returns from  owners. In most cases, however, the benefits of an LLC are worth the additional effort and expense.

Pros and Cons of a Sole Proprietorship

Many entrepreneurs choose to operate as a sole proprietorship for the ease of use and cost-effectiveness. For example:

  • Sole proprietorships do not require filing articles of organization with the state, payment of filing fees, or corporate documents such as operating agreements
  • Starting a sole proprietorship has fewer initial and ongoing costs and fees than an LLC
  • A sole proprietor may use personal funds and loans to raise capital for the business
  • Income taxes are filed and paid as part of the owner’s personal income tax returns
  • Business assets, contracts, licenses, etc. do not need to be transferred to another entity

However, a sole proprietorship leaves the business owner potentially responsible for all losses, debts, and legal liabilities of the business. Any of one of these risks, should it come to pass, is enough to doom an otherwise successful business. For example, a single lawsuit by a competing business or customer could result in a financially devastating judgment against the owner.

Benefits of Forming an LLC

While starting a business as a sole proprietorship may offer some initial benefits, forming an LLC gives business owners protection from individual liability, thereby substantially reducing the risk to both themselves and their businesses. For that reason, an LLC is typically the preferred method of starting of a business, whether it has one owner or multiple owners. Some reasons why include:

  • LLCs allow pass-through taxation on each member’s individual income tax returns
  • An LLC with multiple owners allows them to pool resources to raise capital, increase credit, and create financial leverage
  • An LLC limits the liability of each owner for legal claims arising out of contract disputes, personal injury claims, business torts and other litigation
  • An LLC may borrow against business assets more readily than individuals
  • With a well-written and thought out operating agreement, LLC owners can agree in advance on all aspects of ownership and operation of the business, reducing the risk to themselves and the business from future disputes

Jay D. Brownstein has over 25 years of experience advising business owners on corporate and contract matters, helping them to manage and avoid legal risks, and representing them in shareholder and partnership disputes and other business litigation. If you’re starting a new business and need help properly setting up an LLC, drafting partnership or other business agreements, or protecting your company in a business dispute, call Brownstein and Nguyen law offices for legal advice.

Businesswoman with Files

Immigration, Executive Orders, and the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently heard and decided the case of USA v Texas. This lawsuit was instituted by twenty six states, challenging the constitutionality of President Obama’s immigration executive actions, including the 2014 executive order creating DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans). This program provided deferred action from removal (or deportation) to law-abiding immigrants. About 4 million immigrant parents of children born in the United States would have qualified under the program, allowing them to remain in the U.S for up to 3 years.

Passports and Visas AtlantaPresident Obama vs. the Supreme Court

The primary question before the Supreme Court involved the extent of the president’s power to interpret and implement federal laws in a manner consistent with his own policy goals. Article II of the constitution obligates the president to ensure that laws are faithfully executed, a provision with its roots in the American Revolution. Another controversial issue raised by this case is the tradition of prosecutorial discretion, or the ability of the executive branch to determine whether to prosecute individuals who are accused of violating federal law. Could the executive branch rely on a traditional exercise of discretion in delaying deportation in the least crucial immigration cases?

Historic Precedence

The Obama administration relied upon the 1985 ruling in Heckler v. Chaney to support the constitutionality of DAPA. In that case, the Supreme Court found that the Food & Drug Administration could legally exercise discretion not to enforce a governing statute. However, the court further observed that the principal of prosecutorial discretion is not unlimited. For instance, this principal cannot be employed to justify a broad policy decision that would exclude an agency’s legal duties (e.g., the executive branch is not allowed to stop enforcing duly enacted federal drug policies). The Supreme Court therefore needed to decided in USA v. Texas whether Obama’s immigration policy was akin to a prosecutor refusing to press charges in certain cases, or whether it was a broad policy decision that abdicated the executive branch’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law.

Supreme Court Deadlock

Following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, only 8 Justices of the Supreme Court heard the case of USA v. Texas. The court deadlocked on the constitutional questions before it, with a split vote of 4 to 4. Unfortunately, this amounts to a non-decision and leaves in place a lower appeals court ruling permanently blocking President Obama’s executive actions on immigration. As a result of the Supreme Court’s failure to affirmatively decide this important issue, millions of law-abiding residents who would have been eligible for relief under DAPA may one day face deportation despite having U.S. born children with lives here and who need their parents for support.

At the Atlanta attorney offices of Brownstein & Nguyen, we have decades of experience handling matters for thousands of clients in the complicated area of immigration law. If you, a family member or friend need help with legal immigration, contact our offices for a case evaluation.

Pitfalls in the Citizenship Approval Process

Despite the seemingly straightforward steps listed on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website, acquiring U.S. citizenship is not a simple undertaking. For example the second step – “determine if you are eligible” – is deceptively complicated. While at first it appears to be a simple “yes” or “no” answer, within that question is an eligibility worksheet that lists 15 mandatory factors.

Residency Requirements

Generally, applicants seeking citizenship must have been a permanent resident for at least five years. This means that the applicant both (1) possesses a permanent residency card (green card) and (2) has lived in the U.S. for five years. Residency can be established in a variety of ways including mortgages, rental agreements, utility bills and other documents that substantiate residency.Passports and Visas Atlanta

The USCIS also examines how often applicants leave the country during their residency period. Applicants cannot live or travel outside of the United States for a cumulative total of 30 months or more. However, exceptions might apply if trips outside the U.S. are unavoidable, for example extended family visits for medical reasons. Additionally, within those 30 months no single trip can last longer than a year unless a specific exception in the law applies.

Tax Requirements

An additional requirement not included in the eligibility worksheet is being current on all U.S. tax obligations. all applicants must file tax returns and either (1) pay any overdue tax debts or (2) be in good standing in a repayment program.

The above are only a few of the many issues to look at when determining eligibility for citizenship. For more information about citizenship, check out our website here.

If you believe that you meet all the requirements for citizenship, that is not the end of the process. The USCIS can and does request supporting documentation to substantiate each eligibility factor. Tracking eligibility and maintaining documentation is critical for a smooth approval process. The immigration approval process is complicated and full of pitfalls. For example, if an LPR (lawful permanent resident) overstayed their visa, is ineligible for continued residence, or deemed removable from the United States for any one of myriad reasons, filing a citizenship petition can result in the USCIC placing the applicant into removal proceedings.

Seeking legal advice early in the process is one of the best ways to avoid problems, delays or denials of citizenship applications. For expert assistance with citizenship and other legal immigration needs, contact the immigration attorneys at Brownstein & Nguyen today.

Do Contracts Need to Be In Writing to be Enforceable?

Generally, contracts come in two varieties – written or verbal – both of which may be legally enforced depending on the circumstances. Verbal contracts can be difficult to enforce because often there is no solid evidence of the specific terms of the agreement. While verbal agreements under the right circumstances may be enforced, certain agreements must be in writing to be binding. With written contracts, it is critical that all the essential terms or elements of the agreement must be laid out or the else the parties’ intent may be unclear and the contract deemed ambiguous.

Enforced ContractsLegal Contract Atlanta

The following contracts should be in writing:

  • Trust contracts involving a grantor, trustee, or a beneficiary
  • Situations involving the co-sponsoring or agreement to pay another person’s debt
  • Contracts that take longer than one year to complete such as employment or providing goods or services
  • Contracts involving the purchase or sale of real estate
  • Contracts that could last longer than the life of a party or parties involved
  • The transfer of property from a person’s will at death during the probate period

Uniform Commercial Code Statutory Laws

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) refers to the enforceable laws of commerce throughout the United States. Each state has adopted a version of the UCC within its statutory laws. It’s important that specific state laws are checked in an effort to make sure a contract is compliant.

Article 2 of the UCC applies to contracts. UCC Section 2-201 states that any contract for goods with a value or price of $500 or more must be in writing to be enforced. However, there are exceptions to this rule for certain verbal contracts. One example of an exception would be if a buyer receives and accepts goods, in which case a contract between buyer and seller will be enforced. If only a portion of the goods are received, then that portion will be enforceable.

Best to Have Your Contract in Writing

It’s always advisable to have any business contract or agreement in writing, although other types of contracts can be made verbally. If something goes wrong with an agreement, having a written contract that is enforceable through the courts is the best way to protect a business’ interests in regard to contract’s subject matter. In many cases, verbal business agreements can be difficult and costly to enforce.

Breach of Contract

If a breach of contract situation occurs or is suspected to be happening, whether resulting from a verbal agreement or written agreement, it’s important to obtain legal advice as soon as possible. Contact the Atlanta law offices of Brownstein & Nguyen for expert assistance involving the specific legal issues involved in your contract dispute and, importantly, to learn how to preserve your legal rights and what remedies are available.