|
Areas of Practice
Mr. Halling specializes in complex
transaction and litigation work, and has
significant experience in real estate,
high technology, corporations, finance,
and estates and trusts.
Education
Juris Doctor, University of Southern
California, 1979.
Notes Editor, Southern California Law
Review 1978-79.
Staff Member, Southern California Law
Review 1977-78.
Note, The Federal False Claims Act: A
"Remedial" Alternative for Protecting
the Government from Fraudulent
Practices, 52 S. Cal. L. Rev. 159
(1978).
A.B., University of California at Los
Angeles, 1975
Cum Laude, Economics
Member, College of Letters and Science
Honors Program.
Member, Dean's List.
Professional Qualifications and
Activities
Mr. Halling was admitted to the
California State Bar in 1979, and is
also admitted to practice before the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and
United States District Court for the
Central and Eastern Districts of
California. He is a member of the
American Bar Association Section of
Science and Technology, and a past
member of that Section’s Committee on
Contracting For Computers. Mr. Halling
also is a member of the Los Angeles
County Bar Association. During 1987 to
1988 he served as a Judge Pro Tempore
for the Los Angeles Municipal Court. Mr.
Halling has also received an AV Rating
which signifies that he has reached the
top of professional excellence.
Other Activities
Mr. Halling has lectured on the legal
aspects of contracting for computer
goods and services before numerous
industry and business organizations
including the Data Processing Management
Association, Association of Retail
Management Information Systems
Professionals (ARMIS), and major
consulting firms including KPMG Peat
Marwick and Deloitte & Touche. He is a
member of U.S.C. Law School’s support
group, Legion Lex.
Published Decisions
In re Valley State Bank, 223 Cal.App.3d
221, 272 Cal.Rptr. 707 (1990). Mr.
Halling represented the landlord in an
action against the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as
receiver of Valley State Bank in a
liquidation proceeding. The Court held
that the FDIC could not discharge the
bank's preclosing debt to the landlord
for past due rent through issuance of a
receiver's certificate, unless it
elected to terminate lease. Since the
FDIC chose to adopt the lease and
require that the landlord abide by its
terms, it was required to cure the
existing default by means of payment of
$93,726 to the landlord.
|
