TY 2018 Form 990

(A) Name and Title	(B) Average hours per week (list any hours for related organizations below dotted line)	(C) Position (do not check more than one box, unless person is both an officer and a director/trustee)	(E) Reportable compensation from related organizations (W- 2/1099-MISC)
(1) H DAN FISK ESQ...................................................................... CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT	50.00 .................	X	X	66,000
(2) AUGUSTUS I DUPONT ESQ...................................................................... VICE CHAIRMAN	1.00 .................	X	X	0
(3) SCOT M ELDER...................................................................... SECRETARY	1.00 .................	X	X	0
(4) DAVID E WOOD ESQ...................................................................... TREASURER	1.00 .................	X	X	0
(5) TRACY A BACIGALUPO...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(6) THOMAS E BIRSIC ESQ...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(7) JOHN L BROWNLEE ESQ...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(8) MARCY S COHEN ESQ...................................................................... DIRECTOR THRU 12/31/18	1.00 .................	X		0
(9) TIMOTHY E FLANIGAN...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(10) MARY L GARCEAU ESQ...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(11) JONATHAN P GRAHAM ESQ...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(12) ROBERT L HAIG...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(13) STEPHEN J HARMELIN ESQ...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(14) JOE G HOLLINGSWORTH ESQ...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(15) FRANK R JIMENEZ ESQ...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(16) ROBERT E JUCEAM ESQ...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(17) JOHN J KENNEY ESQ...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0

- TIN:

SCHEDULE A
(Form 990 or 990EZ)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Public Charity Status and Public Support

Complete if the organization is a section 501(c)(3) organization or a section 4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust.
right arrow

Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
right arrow

Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2018

Open to Public
Inspection

Name of the organization

ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

Employer identification number

23-2022920

Part I

Reason for Public Charity Status (All organizations must complete this part.) See instructions.

The organization is not a private foundation because it is: (For lines 1 through 12, check only one box.)

A church, convention of churches, or association of churches described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(i).

A school described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii). (Attach Schedule E (Form 990 or 990-EZ).)

A hospital or a cooperative hospital service organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii).

A medical research organization operated in conjunction with a hospital described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii). Enter the hospital's name, city, and state:

An organization operated for the benefit of a college or university owned or operated by a governmental unit described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iv). (Complete Part II.)

A federal, state, or local government or governmental unit described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(v).

An organization that normally receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or from the general public described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). (Complete Part II.)

A community trust described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). (Complete Part II.)

An agricultural research organization described in 170(b)(1)(A)(ix) operated in conjunction with a land-grant college or university or a non-land grant college of agriculture. See instructions. Enter the name, city, and state of the college or university:

An organization that normally receives: (1) more than 331/3% of its support from contributions, membership fees, and gross receipts from activities related to its exempt functions—subject to certain exceptions, and (2) no more than 331/3% of its support from gross investment income and unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 tax) from businesses acquired by the organization after June 30, 1975. See section 509(a)(2). (Complete Part III.)

An organization organized and operated exclusively to test for public safety. See section 509(a)(4).

An organization organized and operated exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, or to carry out the purposes of one or more publicly supported organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or section 509(a)(2). See section 509(a)(3). Check the box in lines 12a through 12d that describes the type of supporting organization and complete lines 12e, 12f, and 12g.

Type I. A supporting organization operated, supervised, or controlled by its supported organization(s), typically by giving the supported organization(s) the power to regularly appoint or elect a majority of the directors or trustees of the supporting organization. You must complete Part IV, Sections A and B.

Type II. A supporting organization supervised or controlled in connection with its supported organization(s), by having control or management of the supporting organization vested in the same persons that control or manage the supported organization(s). You must complete Part IV, Sections A and C.

Type III functionally integrated. A supporting organization operated in connection with, and functionally integrated with, its supported organization(s) (see instructions). You must complete Part IV, Sections A, D, and E.

Type III non-functionally integrated. A supporting organization operated in connection with its supported organization(s) that is not functionally integrated. The organization generally must satisfy a distribution requirement and an attentiveness requirement (see instructions). You must complete Part IV, Sections A and D, and Part V.

Check this box if the organization received a written determination from the IRS that it is a Type I, Type II, Type III functionally integrated, or Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organization.

Enter the number of supported organizations ...............................

Provide the following information about the supported organization(s).

(i) Name of supported organization	(ii) EIN	(iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document?		(v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions)	(vi) Amount of other support (see instructions)
(i) Name of supported organization	(ii) EIN	Yes	No	(v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions)	(vi) Amount of other support (see instructions)


Total

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for
Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Cat. No. 11285F

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2018

Page 2

Part II

Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(iv), 170(b)(1)(A)(vi), and 170(b)(1)(A)(ix)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 5, 7, 8, or 9 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part III. If the organization fails to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part III.)

Section A. Public Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2014	(b) 2015	(c) 2016	(d) 2017	(e) 2018	(f) Total
1	Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") ..	561,704	313,610	484,180	266,841	517,652	2,143,987
2	Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf....
3	The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge..
4	Total. Add lines 1 through 3	561,704	313,610	484,180	266,841	517,652	2,143,987
5	The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f)..						543,602
6	Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4.						1,600,385

Section B. Total Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2014	(b) 2015	(c) 2016	(d) 2017	(e) 2018	(f) Total
7	Amounts from line 4..	561,704	313,610	484,180	266,841	517,652	2,143,987
8	Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources...	256	176	115	255	338	1,140
9	Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on..
10	Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.)..
11	Total support. Add lines 7 through 10						2,145,127

Gross receipts from related activities, etc. (see instructions) ..................

First five years. If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a section 501(c)(3) organization, check this box and stop here........................................ right arrow

Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage

Public support percentage for 2018 (line 6, column (f) divided by line 11, column (f)) .........

74.610 %

Public support percentage for 2017 Schedule A, Part II, line 14 ...............

73.100 %

16a

33 1/3% support test—2018. If the organization did not check the box on line 13, and line 14 is 33 1/3% or more, check this box
and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ....................... right arrow

33 1/3% support test—2017. If the organization did not check a box on line 13 or 16a, and line 15 is 33 1/3% or more, check this
box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ..................... right arrow

17a

10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2018. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, or 16b, and line 14
is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test, check this box and stop here. Explain
in Part VI how the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported
organization ..................................................... right arrow

10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2017. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, or 17a, and line
15 is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test, check this box and stop here.
Explain in Part VI how the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly
supported organization ................................................ right arrow

Private foundation. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, 17a, or 17b, check this box and see
instructions ..................................................... right arrow

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2018

Page 3

Part III

Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Section 509(a)(2)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 10 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part II. If the organization fails to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part II.)

Section A. Public Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2014	(b) 2015	(c) 2016	(d) 2017	(e) 2018	(f) Total
1	Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") .
2	Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose
3	Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513 .....
4	Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf...
5	The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge
6	Total. Add lines 1 through 5
7a	Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons
b	Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year.
c	Add lines 7a and 7b..
8	Public support. (Subtract line 7c from line 6.)

Section B. Total Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2014	(b) 2015	(c) 2016	(d) 2017	(e) 2018	(f) Total
9	Amounts from line 6...
10a	Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources..
b	Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975.
c	Add lines 10a and 10b.
11	Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.
12	Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.) ..
13	Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.)..

First five years. If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a section 501(c)(3) organization,
check this box and stop here............................................. right arrow

Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage

Public support percentage for 2018 (line 8, column (f) divided by line 13, column (f)) .........

Public support percentage from 2017 Schedule A, Part III, line 15 ...............

Section D. Computation of Investment Income Percentage

Investment income percentage for 2018 (line 10c, column (f) divided by line 13, column (f)) ......

Investment income percentage from 2017 Schedule A, Part III, line 17 .............

19a

331/3% support tests—2018. If the organization did not check the box on line 14, and line 15 is more than 33 1/3%, and line 17 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ....... right arrow

33 1/3% support tests—2017. If the organization did not check a box on line 14 or line 19a, and line 16 is more than 33 1/3% and line 18 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization .... right arrow

Private foundation. If the organization did not check a box on line 14, 19a, or 19b, check this box and see instructions .... right arrow

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2018

Page 4

Part IV

Supporting Organizations

(Complete only if you checked a box on line 12 of Part I. If you checked 12a of Part I, complete Sections A and B. If you checked 12b of Part I, complete Sections A and C. If you checked 12c of Part I, complete Sections A, D, and E. If you checked 12d of Part I, complete Sections A and D, and complete Part V.)

Section A. All Supporting Organizations

Yes

Are all of the organization’s supported organizations listed by name in the organization’s governing documents?
If "No," describe in Part VI how the supported organizations are designated. If designated by class or purpose,
describe the designation. If historic and continuing relationship, explain.

Did the organization have any supported organization that does not have an IRS determination of status under section 509(a)(1) or (2)? If "Yes," explain in Part VI how the organization determined that the supported organization was described in section 509(a)(1) or (2).

Did the organization have a supported organization described in section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6)? If "Yes," answer (b) and (c) below.

Did the organization confirm that each supported organization qualified under section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6) and satisfied the public support tests under section 509(a)(2)? If "Yes," describe in Part VI when and how the organization made the determination.

Did the organization ensure that all support to such organizations was used exclusively for section 170(c)(2)(B) purposes? If "Yes," explain in Part VI what controls the organization put in place to ensure such use.

Was any supported organization not organized in the United States ("foreign supported organization")? If “Yes” and if you checked 12a or 12b in Part I, answer (b) and (c) below.

Did the organization have ultimate control and discretion in deciding whether to make grants to the foreign supported organization? If “Yes,” describe in Part VI how the organization had such control and discretion despite being controlled or supervised by or in connection with its supported organizations.

Did the organization support any foreign supported organization that does not have an IRS determination under sections 501(c)(3) and 509(a)(1) or (2)? If “Yes,” explain in Part VI what controls the organization used to ensure that all support to the foreign supported organization was used exclusively for section 170(c)(2)(B) purposes.

Did the organization add, substitute, or remove any supported organizations during the tax year? If “Yes,” answer (b) and (c) below (if applicable). Also, provide detail in Part VI, including (i) the names and EIN numbers of the supported organizations added, substituted, or removed; (ii) the reasons for each such action; (iii) the authority under the organization's organizing document authorizing such action; and (iv) how the action was accomplished (such as by amendment to the organizing document).

Type I or Type II only. Was any added or substituted supported organization part of a class already designated in the organization's organizing document?

Substitutions only. Was the substitution the result of an event beyond the organization's control?

Did the organization provide support (whether in the form of grants or the provision of services or facilities) to anyone other than (i) its supported organizations, (ii) individuals that are part of the charitable class benefited by one or more of its supported organizations, or (iii) other supporting organizations that also support or benefit one or more of the filing organization’s supported organizations? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did the organization provide a grant, loan, compensation, or other similar payment to a substantial contributor (defined in section 4958(c)(3)(C)), a family member of a substantial contributor, or a 35% controlled entity with regard to a substantial contributor? If “Yes,” complete Part I of Schedule L (Form 990 or 990-EZ) .

Did the organization make a loan to a disqualified person (as defined in section 4958) not described in line 7? If “Yes,” complete Part I of Schedule L (Form 990 or 990-EZ).

Was the organization controlled directly or indirectly at any time during the tax year by one or more disqualified persons as defined in section 4946 (other than foundation managers and organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or (2))? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did one or more disqualified persons (as defined in line 9a) hold a controlling interest in any entity in which the supporting organization had an interest? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did a disqualified person (as defined in line 9a) have an ownership interest in, or derive any personal benefit from, assets in which the supporting organization also had an interest? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

10a

Was the organization subject to the excess business holdings rules of section 4943 because of section 4943(f) (regarding certain Type II supporting organizations, and all Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organizations)? If “Yes,” answer line 10b below.

10a

Did the organization have any excess business holdings in the tax year? (Use Schedule C, Form 4720, to determine whether the organization had excess business holdings).

10b

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2018

Page 5

Part IV

Supporting Organizations (continued)

Yes

Has the organization accepted a gift or contribution from any of the following persons?

A person who directly or indirectly controls, either alone or together with persons described in (b) and (c) below, the governing body of a supported organization?

11a

A family member of a person described in (a) above?

11b

A 35% controlled entity of a person described in (a) or (b) above? If “Yes” to a, b, or c, provide detail in Part VI.

11c

Section B. Type I Supporting Organizations

Yes

Did the directors, trustees, or membership of one or more supported organizations have the power to regularly appoint or elect at least a majority of the organization’s directors or trustees at all times during the tax year? If “No,” describe in Part VI how the supported organization(s) effectively operated, supervised, or controlled the organization’s activities. If the organization had more than one supported organization, describe how the powers to appoint and/or remove directors or trustees were allocated among the supported organizations and what conditions or restrictions, if any, applied to such powers during the tax year.

Did the organization operate for the benefit of any supported organization other than the supported organization(s) that operated, supervised, or controlled the supporting organization? If “Yes,” explain in Part VI how providing such benefit carried out the purposes of the supported organization(s) that operated, supervised or controlled the supporting organization.

Section C. Type II Supporting Organizations

Yes

Were a majority of the organization’s directors or trustees during the tax year also a majority of the directors or trustees of each of the organization’s supported organization(s)? If “No,” describe in Part VI how control or management of the supporting organization was vested in the same persons that controlled or managed the supported organization(s).

Section D. All Type III Supporting Organizations

Yes

Did the organization provide to each of its supported organizations, by the last day of the fifth month of the organization’s tax year, (i) a written notice describing the type and amount of support provided during the prior tax year, (ii) a copy of the Form 990 that was most recently filed as of the date of notification, and (iii) copies of the organization’s governing documents in effect on the date of notification, to the extent not previously provided?

Were any of the organization’s officers, directors, or trustees either (i) appointed or elected by the supported organization(s) or (ii) serving on the governing body of a supported organization? If "No," explain in Part VI how the organization maintained a close and continuous working relationship with the supported organization(s).

By reason of the relationship described in (2), did the organization’s supported organizations have a significant voice in the organization’s investment policies and in directing the use of the organization’s income or assets at all times during the tax year? If "Yes," describe in Part VI the role the organization’s supported organizations played in this regard.

Section E. Type III Functionally-Integrated Supporting Organizations

Check the box next to the method that the organization used to satisfy the Integral Part Test during the year (see instructions):

The organization satisfied the Activities Test. Complete line 2 below.

The organization is the parent of each of its supported organizations. Complete line 3 below.

The organization supported a governmental entity. Describe in Part VI how you supported a government entity (see instructions)

Activities Test. Answer (a) and (b) below.

Yes

Did substantially all of the organization’s activities during the tax year directly further the exempt purposes of the supported organization(s) to which the organization was responsive? If "Yes," then in Part VI identify those supported organizations and explain how these activities directly furthered their exempt purposes, how the organization was responsive to those supported organizations, and how the organization determined that these activities constituted substantially all of its activities.

Did the activities described in (a) constitute activities that, but for the organization’s involvement, one or more of the organization’s supported organization(s) would have been engaged in? If "Yes," explain in Part VI the reasons for the organization’s position that its supported organization(s) would have engaged in these activities but for the organization’s involvement.

Parent of Supported Organizations. Answer (a) and (b) below.

Did the organization have the power to regularly appoint or elect a majority of the officers, directors, or trustees of each of the supported organizations? Provide details in Part VI.

Did the organization exercise a substantial degree of direction over the policies, programs and activities of each of its supported organizations? If "Yes," describe in Part VI. the role played by the organization in this regard.

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2018

Page 6

Part V

Type III Non-Functionally Integrated 509(a)(3) Supporting Organizations

Check here if the organization satisfied the Integral Part Test as a qualifying trust on Nov. 20, 1970 (explain in Part VI). See instructions. All other Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organizations must complete Sections A through E.

	Section A - Adjusted Net Income		(A) Prior Year	(B) Current Year (optional)
1	Net short-term capital gain	1
2	Recoveries of prior-year distributions	2
3	Other gross income (see instructions)	3
4	Add lines 1 through 3	4
5	Depreciation and depletion	5
6	Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions)	6
7	Other expenses (see instructions)	7
8	Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4)	8

	Section B - Minimum Asset Amount		(A) Prior Year	(B) Current Year (optional)
1	Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year):	1
a	Average monthly value of securities	1a
b	Average monthly cash balances	1b
c	Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets	1c
d	Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c)	1d
e	Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI):
2	Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets	2
3	Subtract line 2 from line 1d	3
4	Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 1-1/2% of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions).	4
5	Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3)	5
6	Multiply line 5 by .035	6
7	Recoveries of prior-year distributions	7
8	Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6)	8

	Section C - Distributable Amount		Current Year
1	Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A)	1
2	Enter 85% of line 1	2
3	Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A)	3
4	Enter greater of line 2 or line 3	4
5	Income tax imposed in prior year	5
6	Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions)	6

Check here if the current year is the organization's first as a non-functionally-integrated Type III supporting organization (see instructions)

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2018

Page 7

Part V

Type III Non-Functionally Integrated 509(a)(3) Supporting Organizations (continued)

Section D - Distributions		Current Year
1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes
2 Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity
3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations
4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets
5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required)
6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions
7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6.
8 Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions
9 Distributable amount for 2018 from Section C, line 6
10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount

Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions)		(i) Excess Distributions	(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2018	(iii) Distributable Amount for 2018
1 Distributable amount for 2018 from Section C, line 6
2 Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2018 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI). See instructions.
3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2018:
a From 2013.......
b From 2014.......
c From 2015.......
d From 2016.......
e From 2017.......
fTotal of lines 3a through e
g Applied to underdistributions of prior years
h Applied to 2018 distributable amount
i Carryover from 2013 not applied (see instructions)
j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f.
4Distributions for 2018 from Section D, line 7:
$
a Applied to underdistributions of prior years
b Applied to 2018 distributable amount
c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4.
5 Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2018, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions.
6 Remaining underdistributions for 2018. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions.
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2019. Add lines 3j and 4c.
8 Breakdown of line 7:
a Excess from 2014......
b Excess from 2015.....
c Excess from 2016.....
d Excess from 2017.....
e Excess from 2018.....

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) (2018)

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2018

Page 8

Part VI

Supplemental Information. Provide the explanations required by Part II, line 10; Part II, line 17a or 17b; Part III, line 12; Part IV, Section A, lines 1, 2, 3b, 3c, 4b, 4c, 5a, 6, 9a, 9b, 9c, 11a, 11b, and 11c; Part IV, Section B, lines 1 and 2; Part IV, Section C, line 1; Part IV, Section D, lines 2 and 3; Part IV, Section E, lines 1c, 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b; Part V, line 1; Part V, Section B, line 1e; Part V Section D, lines 5, 6, and 8; and Part V, Section E, lines 2, 5, and 6. Also complete this part for any additional information. (See instructions).

Facts And Circumstances Test

Return Reference	Explanation

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2018

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

Schedule B
(Form 990, 990-EZ,
or 990-PF)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Schedule of Contributors

Attach to Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF.

Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2018

Name of the organization

ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

Employer identification number

23-2022920

Organization type (check one):

Filers of:

Section:

Form 990 or 990-EZ

501(c)( ) (enter number) organization

4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust not treated as a private foundation

527 political organization

Form 990-PF

501(c)(3) exempt private foundation

4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust treated as a private foundation

501(c)(3) taxable private foundation

Check if your organization is covered by the General Rule or a Special Rule.
Note. Only a section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) organization can check boxes for both the General Rule and a Special Rule. See instructions.

General Rule

For an organization filing Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF that received, during the year, contributions totaling $5,000 or more (in money or other property) from any one contributor. Complete Parts I and II. See instructions for determining a contributor's total contributions.

Special Rules

For an organization described in section 501(c)(3) filing Form 990 or 990-EZ that met the 33¹/3% support test of the regulations
under sections 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi), that checked Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ), Part II, line 13, 16a, or 16b, and that received from any one contributor, during the year, total contributions of the greater of (1) $5,000 or (2) 2% of the amount on (i) Form 990, Part VIII, line 1h, or (ii) Form 990-EZ, line 1. Complete Parts I and II.

For an organization described in section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) filing Form 990 or 990-EZ that received from any one contributor,
during the year, total contributions of more than $1,000 exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. Complete Parts I, II, and III.

For an organization described in section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) filing Form 990 or 990-EZ that received from any one contributor,
during the year, contributions exclusively for religious, charitable, etc., purposes, but no such contributions totaled more than $1,000. If this box is checked, enter here the total contributions that were received during the year for an exclusively religious, charitable, etc., purpose. Don't complete any of the parts unless the General Rule applies to this organization because it received nonexclusively religious, charitable, etc., contributions totaling $5,000 or more during the year ......... Arrow Bullet

Caution. An organization that isn't covered by the General Rule and/or the Special Rules doesn't file Schedule B (Form 990,
990-EZ, or 990-PF), but it must answer “No” on Part IV, line 2, of its Form 990; or check the box on line H of its
Form 990-EZ or on its Form 990PF, Part I, line 2, to certify that it doesn't meet the filing requirements of Schedule B (Form 990,
990-EZ, or 990-PF).

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions
for Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF.

Cat. No. 30613XSchedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2018)

Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2018) Page 2

Name of organization ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

Part I	Contributors (See instructions). Use duplicate copies of Part I if additional space is needed.
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2018)

Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2018)

Page 3

Name of organization ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION		Employer identification number 23-2022920

Part II	Noncash Property (See instructions). Use duplicate copies of Part II if additional space is needed.
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (See instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (See instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (See instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (See instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (See instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (See instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2018)

Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2018)

Page 4


Name of organization ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION			Employer identification number 23-2022920
Part III Exclusively religious, charitable, etc., contributions to organizations described in section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) that total more than $1,000 for the year from any one contributor. Complete columns (a) through (e) and the following line entry. For organizations completing Part III, enter the total of exclusively religious, charitable, etc., contributions of $1,000 or less for the year. (Enter this information once. See instructions.) $ Use duplicate copies of Part III if additional space is needed.

(a)
No. from Part I

(b) Purpose of gift

(d) Description of how gift is held

(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4	Relationship of transferor to transferee

(a)
No. from Part I

(b) Purpose of gift

(d) Description of how gift is held

(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4	Relationship of transferor to transferee

(a)
No. from Part I

(b) Purpose of gift

(d) Description of how gift is held

(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4	Relationship of transferor to transferee

(a)
No. from Part I

(b) Purpose of gift

(d) Description of how gift is held

(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4	Relationship of transferor to transferee

Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2018)

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

SCHEDULE D
(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Supplemental Financial Statements

Complete if the organization answered "Yes," on Form 990,
Part IV, line 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e, 11f, 12a, or 12b.
SchDMd Bullet

Attach to Form 990.
SchDMd Bullet

Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2018

Open to Public Inspection

Name of the organization

ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

Employer identification number

23-2022920

Part I

Organizations Maintaining Donor Advised Funds or Other Similar Funds or Accounts. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 6.

		(a) Donor advised funds	(b) Funds and other accounts
1	Total number at end of year .........
2	Aggregate value of contributions to (during year)
3	Aggregate value of grants from (during year)
4	Aggregate value at end of year ........

Did the organization inform all donors and donor advisors in writing that the assets held in donor advised funds are the organization’s property, subject to the organization’s exclusive legal control? ............

Yes No

Did the organization inform all grantees, donors, and donor advisors in writing that grant funds can be used only for charitable purposes and not for the benefit of the donor or donor advisor, or for any other purpose conferring impermissible private benefit? ...................................

Yes No

Part II

Conservation Easements. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 7.

Purpose(s) of conservation easements held by the organization (check all that apply).

Preservation of land for public use (e.g., recreation or education) Preservation of an historically important land area

Protection of natural habitat Preservation of a certified historic structure

Preservation of open space

Complete lines 2a through 2d if the organization held a qualified conservation contribution in the form of a conservation easement on the last day of the tax year.


a	Total number of conservation easements ......................	2a
b	Total acreage restricted by conservation easements ....................	2b
c	Number of conservation easements on a certified historic structure included in (a) .....	2c
d	Number of conservation easements included in (c) acquired after 7/25/06, and not on a historic structure listed in the National Register ...	2d

Number of conservation easements modified, transferred, released, extinguished, or terminated by the organization during the
tax year SchDMd Bullet

Number of states where property subject to conservation easement is located SchDMd Bullet

Does the organization have a written policy regarding the periodic monitoring, inspection, handling of violations, and enforcement of the conservation easements it holds? ............

Yes No

Staff and volunteer hours devoted to monitoring, inspecting, handling of violations, and enforcing conservation easements during the year
SchDMd Bullet

Amount of expenses incurred in monitoring, inspecting, handling of violations, and enforcing conservation easements during the year
SchDMd Bullet

Does each conservation easement reported on line 2(d) above satisfy the requirements of section 170(h)(4)(B)(i) and section 170(h)(4)(B)(ii)? .............................

Yes No

In Part XIII, describe how the organization reports conservation easements in its revenue and expense statement, and
balance sheet, and include, if applicable, the text of the footnote to the organization’s financial statements that describes
the organization’s accounting for conservation easements.

Part III

Organizations Maintaining Collections of Art, Historical Treasures, or Other Similar Assets.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 8.

If the organization elected, as permitted under SFAS 116 (ASC 958), not to report in its revenue statement and balance sheet works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets held for public exhibition, education, or research in furtherance of public service, provide, in Part XIII, the text of the footnote to its financial statements that describes these items.

If the organization elected, as permitted under SFAS 116 (ASC 958), to report in its revenue statement and balance sheet works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets held for public exhibition, education, or research in furtherance of public service, provide the following amounts relating to these items:

(i)

Revenue included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 1 ......................... SchDMd Bullet

(ii)

Assets included in Form 990, Part X ............................... SchDMd Bullet

If the organization received or held works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets for financial gain, provide the
following amounts required to be reported under SFAS 116 (ASC 958) relating to these items:

Revenue included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 1 .......................... SchDMd Bullet

Assets included in Form 990, Part X ............................... SchDMd Bullet

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990.

Cat. No. 52283D

Schedule D (Form 990) 2018

Page 2

Part III

Organizations Maintaining Collections of Art, Historical Treasures, or Other Similar Assets (continued)

Using the organization’s acquisition, accession, and other records, check any of the following that are a significant use of its collection items (check all that apply):

Public exhibition

Loan or exchange programs

Scholarly research

Other

Preservation for future generations

Provide a description of the organization’s collections and explain how they further the organization’s exempt purpose in
Part XIII.

During the year, did the organization solicit or receive donations of art, historical treasures or other similar
assets to be sold to raise funds rather than to be maintained as part of the organization’s collection?...

Yes No

Part IV

Escrow and Custodial Arrangements. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 9, or reported an amount on Form 990, Part X, line 21.

Is the organization an agent, trustee, custodian or other intermediary for contributions or other assets not
included on Form 990, Part X? ....................................

Yes No


b	If "Yes," explain the arrangement in Part XIII and complete the following table:		Amount
c	Beginning balance .............................	1c
d	Additions during the year ............................	1d
e	Distributions during the year ..........................	1e
f	Ending balance ................................	1f

Did the organization include an amount on Form 990, Part X, line 21, for escrow or custodial account liability? ...

Yes No

If "Yes," explain the arrangement in Part XIII. Check here if the explanation has been provided in Part XIII ....

Part V

Endowment Funds. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 10.

		(a)Current year	(b)Prior year	(c)Two years back	(d)Three years back	(e)Four years back

1a	Beginning of year balance ....
b	Contributions ...
c	Net investment earnings, gains, and losses
d	Grants or scholarships ...
e	Other expenditures for facilities and programs ...
f	Administrative expenses ....
g	End of year balance ......

Provide the estimated percentage of the current year end balance (line 1g, column (a)) held as:

Board designated or quasi-endowment SchDMd Bullet

Permanent endowment SchDMd Bullet

Temporarily restricted endowment SchDMd Bullet

The percentages on lines 2a, 2b, and 2c should equal 100%.

Are there endowment funds not in the possession of the organization that are held and administered for the
organization by:

Yes

(i) unrelated organizations .................

3a(i)

(ii) related organizations .................

3a(ii)

If "Yes" on 3a(ii), are the related organizations listed as required on Schedule R? .........

Describe in Part XIII the intended uses of the organization's endowment funds.

Part VI

Land, Buildings, and Equipment.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 11a. See Form 990, Part X, line 10.

Description of property		(a) Cost or other basis (investment)	(b) Cost or other basis (other)	(c) Accumulated depreciation	(d) Book value

1a	Land .....
b	Buildings ....
c	Leasehold improvements
d	Equipment ....
e	Other .....
Total. Add lines 1a through 1e. (Column (d) must equal Form 990, Part X, column (B), line 10(c).)..		0

Schedule D (Form 990) 2018

Page 3

Part VII

InvestmentsOther Securities. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 11b. See Form 990, Part X, line 12.

(a) Description of security or category (including name of security)	(b) Book value	(c) Method of valuation: Cost or end-of-year market value
(1) Financial derivatives.........
(2) Closely-held equity interests........
(3)Other
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col. (B) line 12.)

Part VIII

InvestmentsProgram Related. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 11c. See Form 990, Part X, line 13.

(a) Description of investment	(b) Book value	(c) Method of valuation: Cost or end-of-year market value

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col.(B) line 13.)

Part IX

Other Assets. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 11d. See Form 990, Part X, line 15.

(a) Description				(b) Book value

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col.(B) line 15.)...........

Part X

Other Liabilities. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 11e or 11f. See Form 990, Part X, line 25.

1.(a) Description of liability	(b) Book value
(1) Federal income taxes
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col.(B) line 25.)
2. Liability for uncertain tax positions. In Part XIII, provide the text of the footnote to the organization's financial statements that reports the organization's liability for uncertain tax positions under FIN 48 (ASC 740). Check here if the text of the footnote has been provided in Part XIII

Schedule D (Form 990) 2018

Page 4

Part XI Reconciliation of Revenue per Audited Financial Statements With Revenue per Return Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 12a.
1	Total revenue, gains, and other support per audited financial statements .......			1	560,123
2	Amounts included on line 1 but not on Form 990, Part VIII, line 12:
a	Net unrealized gains (losses) on investments ....	2a	-1,391
b	Donated services and use of facilities .........	2b	60,000
c	Recoveries of prior year grants ...........	2c
d	Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ............	2d
e	Add lines 2a through 2d .....................			2e	58,609
3	Subtract line 2e from line 1..................			3	501,514
4	Amounts included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 12, but not on line 1:
a	Investment expenses not included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 7b .	4a
b	Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ...........	4b
c	Add lines 4a and 4b....................			4c	0
5	Total revenue. Add lines 3 and 4c. (This must equal Form 990, Part I, line 12.) ......			5	501,514

Part XII Reconciliation of Expenses per Audited Financial Statements With Expenses per Return. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 12a.
1	Total expenses and losses per audited financial statements ...........			1	429,137
2	Amounts included on line 1 but not on Form 990, Part IX, line 25:
a	Donated services and use of facilities .........	2a	60,000
b	Prior year adjustments ............	2b
c	Other losses ................	2c
d	Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ............	2d
e	Add lines 2a through 2d....................			2e	60,000
3	Subtract line 2e from line 1...................			3	369,137
4	Amounts included on Form 990, Part IX, line 25, but not on line 1:
a	Investment expenses not included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 7b ..	4a
b	Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ............	4b
c	Add lines 4a and 4b.....................			4c	0
5	Total expenses. Add lines 3 and 4c. (This must equal Form 990, Part I, line 18.) ......			5	369,137

Part XIII

Supplemental Information

Provide the descriptions required for Part II, lines 3, 5, and 9; Part III, lines 1a and 4; Part lV, lines 1b and 2b; Part V, line 4; Part X, line 2; Part XI, lines 2d and 4b; and Part XII, lines 2d and 4b. Also complete this part to provide any additional information.

Return Reference	Explanation
PART X, LINE 2:	THE FOUNDATION RECOGNIZES THE EFFECT OF INCOME TAX POSITIONS ONLY IF THOSE POSITIONS ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT TO BE SUSTAINED. MANAGEMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE FOUNDATION HAD NO UNCERTAIN TAX POSITIONS THAT WOULD REQUIRE FINANCIAL STATEMENT RECOGNITION OR DISCLOSURE. THE FOUNDATION IS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO EXAMINATIONS BY THE APPLICABLE TAXING JURISDICTIONS FOR PERIODS PRIOR TO 2015.

Schedule D (Form 990) 2018

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

SCHEDULE G (Form 990 or 990-EZ)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Supplemental Information Regarding
Fundraising or Gaming Activities

Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, lines 17, 18, or 19, or if the organization entered more than $15,000 on Form 990-EZ, line 6a. right arrow

Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
right arrow

Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2018

Open to Public Inspection

Name of the organization
ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

Employer identification number

23-2022920

Part I

Fundraising Activities. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 17.

Form 990-EZ filers are not required to complete this part.

Indicate whether the organization raised funds through any of the following activities. Check all that apply.

a	Mail solicitations	e	Solicitation of non-government grants
b	Internet and email solicitations	f	Solicitation of government grants
c	Phone solicitations	g	Special fundraising events
d	In-person solicitations

Did the organization have a written or oral agreement with any individual (including officers, directors, trustees

or key employees listed in Form 990, Part VII) or entity in connection with professional fundraising services?

YesNo

If "Yes," list the ten highest paid individuals or entities (fundraisers) pursuant to agreements under which the fundraiser is
to be compensated at least $5,000 by the organization.

(i) Name and address of individual or entity (fundraiser)	(iii) Did fundraiser have custody or control of contributions?
	Yes	No










Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List all states in which the organization is registered or licensed to solicit contributions or has been notified it is exempt from registration or licensing.

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Cat. No. 50083H

Schedule G (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2018

Page 2

Part II

Fundraising Events. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 18, or reported more than $15,000 of fundraising event contributions and gross income on Form 990-EZ, lines 1 and 6b. List events with gross receipts greater than $5,000.

		(a) Event #1 AWARD DINNER (event type)	(d) Total events (add col. (a) through col. (c))
1	Gross receipts . . . . .	247,000	247,000
2	Less: Contributions . . . .	191,200	191,200
3	Gross income (line 1 minus line 2) . . . . . .	55,800	55,800

4	Cash prizes . . . . .
5	Noncash prizes . . . .
6	Rent/facility costs . . . .	55,495	55,495
7	Food and beverages . . .
8	Entertainment . . . .
9	Other direct expenses . . .	16,781	16,781
10	Direct expense summary. Add lines 4 through 9 in column (d) . . . . . . . . . .		72,276
11	Net income summary. Subtract line 10 from line 3, column (d). . . . . . . . . .		-16,476

Part III

Gaming. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 19, or reported more than $15,000 on Form 990-EZ, line 6a.

		(a) Bingo	(b) Pull tabs/Instant bingo/progressive bingo	(c) Other gaming	(d) Total gaming (add col.(a) through col.(c))
1	Gross revenue . . . . .

2	Cash prizes . . . . .
3	Noncash prizes . . . .
4	Rent/facility costs . . . .
5	Other direct expenses . . .

Volunteer labor . . . .

	Yes %
	No

	Yes %
	No

	Yes %
	No

Direct expense summary. Add lines 2 through 5 in column (d) . . . . . . . . . . right arrow

Net gaming income summary. Subtract line 7 from line 1, column (d). . . . . . . . . right arrow

Enter the state(s) in which the organization conducts gaming activities:

Is the organization licensed to conduct gaming activities in each of these states? . . . . . . . .

YesNo

If "No," explain:

10a

Were any of the organization's gaming licenses revoked, suspended or terminated during the tax year? . . .

YesNo

If "Yes," explain:

Schedule G (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2018

Page 3

Does the organization conduct gaming activities with nonmembers? . . . . . . . . . . .

YesNo

Is the organization a grantor, beneficiary or trustee of a trust or a member of a partnership or other entity

formed to administer charitable gaming? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

YesNo

Indicate the percentage of gaming activity conducted in:

The organization's facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13a

An outside facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13b

Enter the name and address of the person who prepares the organization's gaming/special events books and records:

Name

Address

15a

Does the organization have a contract with a third party from whom the organization receives gaming

revenue? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

YesNo

If "Yes," enter the amount of gaming revenue received by the organization right arrow

$ and the

amount of gaming revenue retained by the third party right arrow

$ .

If "Yes," enter name and address of the third party:

Name

Address

Gaming manager information:

Name

Gaming manager compensation right arrow

Description of services provided right arrow

Director/officer Employee Independent contractor

Mandatory distributions:

Is the organization required under state law to make charitable distributions from the gaming proceeds to

retain the state gaming license? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

YesNo

Enter the amount of distributions required under state law distributed to other exempt organizations or spent

in the organization's own exempt activities during the tax year right arrow

Part IV

Supplemental Information. Provide the explanations required by Part I, line 2b, columns (iii) and (v); and Part III, lines 9, 9b, 10b, 15b, 15c, 16, and 17b, as applicable. Also provide any additional information. See instructions.

Return Reference	Explanation

Schedule G (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2018

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

Schedule J
(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Compensation Information

For certain Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest
Compensated Employees
SchJMediumBullet

Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 23.
SchJMediumBullet

Attach to Form 990.
SchJMediumBullet

Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2018

Open to Public Inspection

Name of the organization

ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

Employer identification number

23-2022920

Part I

Questions Regarding Compensation

Yes

Check the appropiate box(es) if the organization provided any of the following to or for a person listed on Form
990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a. Complete Part III to provide any relevant information regarding these items.

First-class or charter travel Housing allowance or residence for personal use

Travel for companions Payments for business use of personal residence

Tax idemnification and gross-up payments Health or social club dues or initiation fees

Discretionary spending account Personal services (e.g., maid, chauffeur, chef)

If any of the boxes in line 1a are checked, did the organization follow a written policy regarding payment or reimbursement or provision of all of the expenses described above? If "No," complete Part III to explain .........

Did the organization require substantiation prior to reimbursing or allowing expenses incurred by all
directors, trustees, officers, including the CEO/Executive Director, regarding the items checked in line 1a? ..

Indicate which, if any, of the following the filing organization used to establish the compensation of the
organization's CEO/Executive Director. Check all that apply. Do not check any boxes for methods
used by a related organization to establish compensation of the CEO/Executive Director, but explain in Part III.

Compensation committee Written employment contract

Independent compensation consultant Compensation survey or study

Form 990 of other organizations Approval by the board or compensation committee

During the year, did any person listed on Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, with respect to the filing organization or a related organization:

Receive a severance payment or change-of-control payment? .............

Participate in, or receive payment from, a supplemental nonqualified retirement plan? .........

Participate in, or receive payment from, an equity-based compensation arrangement? .........

If "Yes" to any of lines 4a-c, list the persons and provide the applicable amounts for each item in Part III.

Only 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), and 501(c)(29) organizations must complete lines 5-9.

For persons listed on Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, did the organization pay or accrue any
compensation contingent on the revenues of:

The organization? ....................

Any related organization? .......................

If "Yes," on line 5a or 5b, describe in Part III.

For persons listed on Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, did the organization pay or accrue any
compensation contingent on the net earnings of:

The organization? ..................

Any related organization? ......................

If "Yes," on line 6a or 6b, describe in Part III.

For persons listed on Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, did the organization provide any nonfixed
payments not described in lines 5 and 6? If "Yes," describe in Part III ............

Yes

Were any amounts reported on Form 990, Part VII, paid or accured pursuant to a contract that was
subject to the initial contract exception described in Regulations section 53.4958-4(a)(3)? If "Yes," describe
in Part III ..........................

If "Yes" on line 8, did the organization also follow the rebuttable presumption procedure described in Regulations section 53.4958-6(c)? .........................

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990.

Cat. No. 50053T

Schedule J (Form 990) 2018

Page 2

Part II

Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees. Use duplicate copies if additional space is needed.

For each individual whose compensation must be reported on Schedule J, report compensation from the organization on row (i) and from related organizations, described in the
instructions, on row (ii). Do not list any individuals that are not listed on Form 990, Part VII.
Note. The sum of columns (B)(i)-(iii) for each listed individual must equal the total amount of Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, applicable column (D) and (E) amounts for that individual.

(A) Name and Title		(B) Breakdown of W-2 and/or 1099-MISC compensation			(C) Retirement and other deferred compensation	(D) Nontaxable benefits	(E) Total of columns (B)(i)-(D)	(F) Compensation in column (B) reported as deferred on prior Form 990
(A) Name and Title		(i) Base compensation	(ii) Bonus & incentive compensation	(iii) Other reportable compensation	(C) Retirement and other deferred compensation	(D) Nontaxable benefits	(E) Total of columns (B)(i)-(D)
1MARTIN S KAUFMAN EXEC VP GEN. COUNSEL & ASST. TREAS	(i) (ii)	156,305 ------------- 0	0 ------------- 0	0 ------------- 0	0 ------------- 0	179 ------------- 0	156,484 ------------- 0	0 ------------- 0

Schedule J (Form 990) 2018

Page 3

Part III

Supplemental Information

Provide the information, explanation, or descriptions required for Part I, lines 1a, 1b, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 7, and 8, and for Part II. Also complete this part for any additional information.

Return Reference	Explanation
PART I, LINE 7	CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT RECEIVED A BONUS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,000 FROM THE ORGANIZATION IN 2018. THE AMOUNT WAS TAXABLE AND REPORTED ON THE INDIVIDUAL'S 2018 FORM 1099.

Schedule J (Form 990) 2018

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

SCHEDULE O
(Form 990 or 990-EZ)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Supplemental Information to Form 990 or 990-EZ

Complete to provide information for responses to specific questions on
Form 990 or 990-EZ or to provide any additional information.
MediumBullet

Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
MediumBullet

Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2018

Open to Public
Inspection

Name of the organization

ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

Employer identification number

23-2022920

Return Reference	Explanation
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A, DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM SERVICE:	SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL AREAS ON WHICH WE FOCUSED IN 2018 WERE: CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION PARTICIPATES IN IMPORTANT CASES SEEKING TO LIMIT THE EXPANSIVE AND CAPRICIOUS EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER. THE ISSUES WE HAVE ADDRESSED INCLUDE CHALLENGING THE EXPANSION OF BUREAUCRATIC POWER, STATE AND LOCAL ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, COMBATING LIMITS ON FREE SPEECH IN PUBLIC FORA AND ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES, AND OPPOSING EXPANSIVE ASSERTIONS OF U.S. COURT JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN ENTITIES AND TRANSACTIONS. SOUND SCIENCE IN LITIGATION AND REGULATION ATLANTIC LEGAL IS THE NATION'S PREEMINENT PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM ADVOCATING FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SOUND MEDICAL AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN TOXIC TORT, PRODUCT LIABILITY AND OTHER LITIGATION. ATLANTIC LEGAL FIGHTS THE ADMISSIBILITY OF "JUNK" SCIENCE, AND FOSTERS THE USE OF SOUND SCIENCE PRINCIPLES IN JUDICIAL AND REGULATORY PROCEEDINGS. OUR AMICUS BRIEFS ON BEHALF OF NUMEROUS NOBEL LAUREATES AND MANY OTHER PROMINENT SCIENTISTS WERE CITED AND RELIED ON BY THE MAJORITY IN THE LANDMARK DAUBERT TRILOGY OF U. S. SUPREME COURT CASES AS WELL AS CASES IN FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS AND THE HIGHEST COURTS OF THE MOST POPULOUS STATES, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA, NEW YORK AND PENNSYLVANIA. ISSUES IMPACTING THE MARKET ECONOMY ATLANTIC LEGAL ADVOCATES AGAINST INTRUSIVE REGULATION OF BUSINESS AND ADVOCATES FOR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE. THE FOUNDATION WAS AN EARLY PROPONENT OF PRESERVATION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST COMPULSORY WAIVER OF THAT ESSENTIAL PROTECTION WHERE CORPORATE MISCONDUCT HAS BEEN ASSERTED. IT HAS CHALLENGED ABUSE OF CLASS ACTION PROCEDURES AND HAS STRONGLY ADVOCATED FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS. EDUCATIONAL CHOICE ATLANTIC LEGAL ACTIVELY SUPPORTS CHARTER SCHOOLS. A MAJOR PART OF THIS EFFORT IS PUBLISHING A SERIES OF STATE LAW GUIDES, WRITTEN BY NATIONALLY KNOWN LABOR LAW ATTORNEYS, TO EDUCATE CHARTER SCHOOL LEADERS ABOUT HOW TO DEAL WITH EFFORTS BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS TO ORGANIZE THE TEACHING STAFF AND TO CURB OR BURDEN CHARTER SCHOOLS WITH INTRUSIVE UNION WORK RULES THAT STIFLE INNOVATION; THE LAW IN THIS AREA IS BOTH NATIONAL AND STATE-SPECIFIC, AND WE HAVE PUBLISHED OUR "LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD" GUIDES FOR SEVERAL LARGE STATES INCLUDING CALIFORNIA, NEW YORK, MICHIGAN AND MASSACHUSETTS. THERE HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS AREA OF THE LAW RECENTLY, SO WE TOGETHER WITH THE PROMINENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS LAW FIRM OF JACKSON LEWIS PC HAVE EMBARKED ON SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS TO THE "LEVELING" SERIES; THE FIRST, COVERING CALIFORNIA, WAS PUBLISHED IN JUNE 2017. THE FOUNDATION ALSO PROVIDES LEGAL COUNSEL TO AND REPRESENTS CHARTER SCHOOLS AND CHARTER SCHOOL ADVOCATES IN COURT AT NO COST. CASES IN 2018 THE FOUNDATION'S PRINCIPAL LEGAL ACTIVITY CONSISTS OF FILING AMICUS BRIEFS IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS, AND THE HIGHEST COURTS OF SEVERAL KEY STATES. IN 2018 WE FILED BRIEFS IN A NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT CASES INVOLVING A VARIETY OF CRITICAL ISSUES AND COMMENCED WORK ON OTHER CASES IN WHICH WE FILED BRIEFS IN 2019. IN ADDITION TO THE CASES IN WHICH WE FILED BRIEFS, THE FOUNDATION'S STAFF SPENS SUBSTANTIAL TIME RESEARCHING, ANALYZING AND PRESENT TO THE FOUNDATION'S BOARD NUMEROUS CASES IN WHICH WE ULTIMATELY DECIDE NOT TO PARTICIPATE. OUR CASES COME TO US IN NUMEROUS WAYS: REQUESTS FROM LAW FIRMS, PRINCIPALLY LAW FIRMS WITH ESTABLISHED SUPREME COURT PRACTICES, TO SUPPORT THEM EITHER ON THE MERITS OR AT THE PETITION STAGE; REQUESTS DIRECTLY FROM POTENTIAL AMICUS CLIENTS, INCLUDING TRADE ASSOCIATIONS, CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS, THINK TANKS, AND INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS; PERUSAL OF LEGAL, SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRY PERIODICALS AND ONLINE BLOGS THAT REPORT ON LEGAL MATTERS OF INTEREST TO THAT TRADE OR PROFESSION; BULLETINS AND "AMICUS CONFERENCE CALLS" FROM THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION AND SIMILAR GROUPS; AD HOC DISCUSSIONS WITH OTHER LAWYERS IN PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRMS AND IN PRIVATE PRACTICE; AND CONSULTATIONS WITH MEMBERS OF ATLANTIC LEGAL'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ADVISORY COUNCIL. THE VERY NATURE OF THESE SOURCES TENDS TO APPRISE US OF CURRENT "HOT" ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE. ONCE A CASE COMES TO THE ATTENTION OF ATLANTIC LEGAL'S STAFF, IT IS DISCUSSED WITH EITHER THE BOARD OR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD, DEPENDING ON THE TIME CONSTRAINTS. COMPELLED SPEECH - WHETHER RETAIL STORES CAN BE REQUIRED TO POST SIGNS WARNING CUSTOMERS OF THE "DANGERS" OF CELL PHONES, WHEN THE FCC (WHICH BY FEDERAL LAW HAS SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION OVER CELLULAR DEVICES) AND THE CONSENSUS OF RELEVANT SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS HAS FOUND NO EMISSION OF DANGEROUS LEVELS OF IONIZING RADIATION BY CELL PHONES. THIS CASE INVOLVES BOTH FREE SPEECH ISSUES AND SOUND SCIENCE ISSUES. ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES - DESPITE A CLEAR STATUTORY ENACTMENT FAVORING ARBITRATION AS AN EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT ALTERNATIVE TO PROTRACTED, EXPENSIVE AND BURDENSOME LITIGATION, MANY STATE AND LOWER FEDERAL COURTS REMAIN HOSTILE TO ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION PROVISIONS. AS A RESULT, THE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN CALLED UPON SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST FEW YEARS TO REITERATE ITS HOLDINGS INSTRUCTING INFERIOR COURTS TO ENFORCE AND APPLY THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT. ATLANTIC LEGAL HAS FREQUENTLY FILED AMICUS BRIEFS IN THOSE CASES, INCLUDING WHAT HAS BEEN CALLED THE "BLOCKBUSTER EPIC SYSTEMS CASE." ONE LEADING SUPREME COURT PRACTITIONER RECENTLY "RECOGNIZE[D] THE ALF'S STRONG TRACK RECORD IN ADVOCATING FOR THE FAIR ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS, AS WELL AS ADDRESSING ISSUES AFFECTING THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY GENERALLY." ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY ON EXPOSURE TO ALLEGED TOXINS AND MEDICAL CAUSATION OF DISEASE - THESE CASES, IN STATE AND FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS, TYPICALLY INVOLVE THE ISSUE WHETHER AN EXPERT'S CAUSATION TESTIMONY BASED ON "CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE" THAT DOES NOT IDENTIFY A SPECIFIC DEFENDANT'S PRODUCT AS THE CAUSE OF THE DISEASE OR FAILS TO QUANTIFY THE PLAINTIFF'S EXPOSURE IS CONSISTENT WITH SOUND SCIENCE AND ADMISSIBLE. IN THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS WE REPRESENTED A GROUP OF SCIENTISTS IN SUBMITTING AN AMICUS BRIEF IN AN ASBESTOS-MESOTHELIOMA CASE THAT RESULTED IN THE COURT REJECTING PLAINTIFF'S "CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE" THEORY OF ASBESTOS DISEASE CAUSATION. OUR BRIEF, ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL PROMINENT SCIENTISTS AND DOCTORS WITH EXPERTISE IN TOXICOLOGY, PATHOLOGY, MINERALOGY AND OTHER RELEVANT DISCIPLINES, POINTED OUT THAT THE "CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE" THEORY IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS OF RELEVANT EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES, AND, EVEN IF IT WERE SO SUPPORTED, WOULD NOT PROVE "SPECIFIC CAUSATION" AS REQUIRED BY NEW YORK LAW. THE NEW YORK SPECIAL ASBESTOS COURT, BASED IN NEW YORK CITY, HAD HERETOFORE BEEN KNOWN AS AN "ASBESTOS LIABILITY HELL-HOLE." ALTHOUGH JUNI V, A.O. SMITH DID NOT BREAK NEW GROUND IN NEW YORK LAW ON MEDICAL CAUSATION, IT APPLIED THOSE PRINCIPLES IN AN ASBESTOS CASE AND AFFIRMED AN EXCELLENT AND WELL-REASONED DECISION OF THE LOWER COURTS. AS A RESULT OF THIS SALUTARY DECISION, WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN AN UPTICK IN THE WILLINGNESS OF TRIAL LEVEL COURTS TO GRANT MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND TO DISMISS CASES BASED ON WEAK EXPERT EVIDENCE. THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT REVERSED ITSELF IN A SIGNIFICANT CASE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY ON EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS AND CAUSATION OF MESOTHELIOMA. THIS CASE INVOLVED TWO ISSUES: (1) SEPARATION OF POWERS WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE CAN ENACT A LAW GOVERNING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, OR WHETHER THAT INFRINGES THE POWER OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH; AND (2) WHETHER AN EXPERT'S CAUSATION TESTIMONY BASED ON "CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE" THAT DOES NOT IDENTIFY A SPECIFIC DEFENDANT'S PRODUCT AS THE CAUSE OF THE DISEASE IS CONSISTENT WITH SOUND SCIENCE AND ADMISSIBLE. THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT INITIALLY HELD THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE'S ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF EVIDENCE ADOPTING A "DAUBERT" STANDARD CONTRAVENED THE JUDICIARY'S CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DETERMINE JUDICIAL PROCEDURES AND THUS WAS VOID. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE SAME CASE IN WHICH ATLANTIC LEGAL FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL PROMINENT SCIENTISTS -- BUT AFTER A CHANGE IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE COURT, THE COURT ITSELF APPROVED THE DAUBERT-LIKE ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH WE HAD ADVOCATED. AS A RESULT, FLORIDA HAS JOINED A GROWING MAJORITY OF STATES THAT HAVE ADOPTED DAUBERT CRITERIA. THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF ATLANTIC LEGAL QUIETLY MAKING A DIFFERENCE AND IMPROVING JURISPRUDENCE. DUE PROCESS AND FIRST AMENDMENT - CY PRES SETTLEMENTS, FRANK V. GAOS, U.S. SUPREME COURT - CY PRES SETTLEMENTS - DECIDED MARCH 19, 2019
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A	THREE NAMED PLAINTIFFS BROUGHT CLASS ACTION CLAIMS AGAINST GOOGLE FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT, AMONG OTHER CLAIMS. ULTIMATELY, THE PARTIES NEGOTIATED A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WOULD REQUIRE GOOGLE TO INCLUDE CERTAIN DISCLOSURES ON SOME OF ITS WEBPAGES AND WOULD DISTRIBUTE MORE THAN $5 MILLION TO CY PRES RECIPIENTS, MORE THAN $2 MILLION TO CLASS COUNSEL, AND NO MONEY TO ABSENT CLASS MEMBERS. PETITIONERS ARE CLASS MEMBERS WHO OBJECTED TO THE SETTLEMENT, ARGUING THAT CY PRESS ONLY RELIEF DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FED. RULE CIV. PROC. 23(E) AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE DISTRICT COURT NEVERTHELESS GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT, AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED. CY PRES SETTLEMENTS OF CLASS ACTIONS HAVE BECOME AN "EASY" WAY FOR THE PARTIES TO SETTLE A CASE, WHILE "MAKING EVERYONE HAPPY." IN THE TYPICAL CY PRES CASE, ONLY A SMALL PORTION OF THE SETTLEMENT FUND INVOLVES CLAIMS BY ACTUAL CLASS MEMBERS OR FUNDS THAT CAN'T BE DISTRIBUTED BECAUSE THE CLASS MEMBERS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT CANNOT BE LOCATED. IN SUCH INSTANCES THE "TAIL" OF THE SETTLEMENT FUND IS DISTRIBUTED TO ONE OR MORE CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE SOME TENUOUS RELATIONSHIP TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE. IN NUMEROUS INSTANCES, THE RECIPIENT IS A COLLEGE OR LAW SCHOOL THAT HAPPENS TO BE THE ALMA MATER OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS'S LAWYER(S), THE DEFENDANTS' LAWYER(S), AND/OR THE JUDGE. ALL THE LAWYERS COME OUT LOOKING GENEROUS AND PHILANTHROPIC (WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY); BUT AT LEAST THE PLAINTIFF CLASS COLLECTIVELY GETS A SUBSTANTIAL PAYOUT. IN THIS CASE, THE ACTUAL INJURED PARTY GOT NOTHING, NOT EVEN A COUPON TO GET A DISCOUNT ON SOME FUTURE PURCHASE FROM THE WRONG-DOER. ATLANTIC LEGAL AND THE CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION OF THE CLAREMONT INSTITUTE JOINTLY FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS IN FRANK V. GAOS. IN THEIR MERITS STAGE CHALLENGE TO THE APPROVAL BY THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, INCLUDING THE NINTH CIRCUIT, OF A CY PRES AWARD SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION THAT PROVIDED THAT THE WHOLE OF THE SETTLEMENT FUND (NET OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND ADMINISTRATION COSTS) WAS TO BE PAID TO ADVOCACY GROUPS; NOT A PENNY WAS PAID TO MEMBERS OF THE CLASS, WHICH CONSISTED OF 130 MILLION USERS OF GOOGLE, WHOSE PRIVACY WAS VIOLATED. WE ARGUE THAT THE CY PRES ONLY SETTLEMENT ALSO VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THE UNNAMED CLASS MEMBERS. BY DIRECTING THE SETTLEMENT FUNDS AWAY FROM MEMBERS OF THE INJURED PLAINTIFF CLASS TO ADVOCACY GROUPS SUCH AS AARP, INC. AND THE WORLD PRIVACY FORUM, THE COURTS BELOW FORCED THE PLAINTIFF CLASS TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO ORGANIZATIONS WITH WHICH THEY MAY NOT AGREE, IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION ON COMPELLED SPEECH. COMPELLING THE PLAINTIFF CLASS TO SUBSIDIZE THE SPEECH OF OTHERS RAISES SIMILAR CONCERNS TO COMPELLED SPEECH, JANUS V. AFSCME, 138 S. CT. AT 2464 (2018), DECIDED AT THE END OF OCTOBER 2017 TERM OF THE COURT, AND COMPELLING INDIVIDUALS TO SPEAK A PARTICULAR MESSAGE "VIOLATES [A] CARDINAL CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND," ID.; SEE NIFLA V. BECERRA, 585 U.S. 138 S.CT. 2361 (2018). WE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE CLASS MEMBERS HAVE NO STANDING BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ALLEGEDLY SUFFERED HARM RECEIVED NO RELIEF AND ARE BARRED FROM SEEKING RELIEF FROM SIMILAR CONDUCT IN THE FUTURE; THUS THE COURT CANNOT REDRESS THE ALLEGED INJURY, FURTHER, THE CY PRES AWARD RECIPIENTS IN THIS CASE HAVE NO STANDING BECAUSE IN FACT THEY HAVE NOT SUFFERED ANY INJURY AND CONSEQUENTLY THE "CASE OR CONTROVERSY" REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE III HAVE NOT BEEN MET. THE SUPREME COURT, AGREEING WITH AN ARGUMENT WE MADE, HELD THAT THE LOWER COURTS DID NOT ADDRESS THE COURT'S OPINION IN SPOKEO, INC. V. ROBINS (2016), WHICH WAS ISSUED AFTER BRIEFING IN THE CASE WAS COMPLETE BUT PRIOR TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT'S DECISION. THE COURT DETERMINED THAT THERE WERE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER ANY OF THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS HAS STANDING TO SUE IN LIGHT SPOKEO. BECAUSE THE COURT IS ONE "OF REVIEW, NOT OF FIRST VIEW," IN A PER CURIAM OPINION THE COURT VACATED THE DECISION OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT APPROVING A CY PRES ONLY CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THESE QUESTIONS. JUSTICE THOMAS, IN DISSENT, WOULD HAVE REACHED THE MERITS AND WOULD HAVE REVERSED THE NINTH CIRCUIT'S CLASS CERTIFICATION AND CLASS SETTLEMENT ORDERS BECAUSE THE CLASS MEMBERS RECEIVED NO DAMAGES OR OTHER FORM OF MEANINGFUL RELIEF. ALTHOUGH THE COURT PUNTED ON DECIDING THE FAIRNESS OF GOOGLE'S $8.5 MILLION CY PRES PRIVACY DEAL THAT STEERED FUNDS TO THIRD PARTIES INSTEAD OF CLASS MEMBERS, JUSTICE THOMAS' UNEQUIVOCAL CRITICISM OF THE ARRANGEMENT MAY BE A SIGN THAT THE HIGH COURT MAY SOON CURTAIL THE PRACTICE. ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS HENRY SCHEIN, INC., ET AL. V. ARCHER AND WHITE SALES, INC. MERITS. DECIDED JANUARY 8, 2019 JURISDICTION TO DECIDE "THRESHOLD ISSUES." JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, WRITING FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT IN HIS FIRST OPINION, REJECTED AN ASSERTED VAGUE EXCEPTION LIMITING ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS IN HENRY SCHEIN INC. V. ARCHER & WHITE SALES INC. THE CASE IS THE MOST RECENT IN A DECADE LONG STRING OF OPINIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT, IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY REVERSED LOWER COURT DECISIONS REFUSING TO ENFORCE ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS. MANY OF THOSE CASES HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY NARROW 5 4 MAJORITIES, WHICH HAS RAISED THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE REPLACEMENT OF JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY MIGHT LEAD TO SOME SOFTENING OF THE COURT'S POSITION IN THOSE CASES. IN FACT, HENRY SCHEIN INDICATES THAT EVEN THE JUSTICES MORE SKEPTICAL ABOUT ARBITRATION SAW NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST ARBITRATION HERE. THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS THE ARBITRABILITY OF "GATEWAY" QUESTIONS WHETHER THE UNDERLYING DISPUTE (DID THE DISTRIBUTOR BREACH A CONTRACT), IS ARBITRABLE. AT BOTTOM, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER A COURT OR AN ARBITRATOR DECIDES WHETHER AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT GOVERNS A PARTICULAR DISPUTE. THE SUPREME COURT REPEATEDLY HAS HELD THAT THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT ALLOWS THE PARTIES TO A CONTRACT TO DECIDE WHETHER AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT WILL EXTEND TO THOSE GATEWAY QUESTIONS, EXPLAINING THAT COURTS MUST COMPEL ARBITRATION OF THE GATEWAY QUESTIONS WHENEVER THE AGREEMENT INCLUDES "CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE EVIDENCE" THAT THE PARTIES DELEGATED THE DECISION OF THOSE QUESTIONS TO THE ARBITRATOR. SEVERAL LOWER COURTS, HOWEVER, HAVE ADOPTED AN EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE, REASONING THAT IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME TO SEND A CASE TO AN ARBITRATOR IF THE CLAIM OF ARBITRABILITY IS "WHOLLY GROUNDLESS." IN THIS CASE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CONTRACT CALLED FOR ARBITRATION OF ANY "DISPUTE ARISING UNDER OR RELATED TO" THE CONTRACT "EXCEPT FOR ACTIONS SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF." BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT SOUGHT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN ADDITION TO DAMAGES, THE COURTS BELOW REASONED THAT BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION WAS WHOLLY GROUNDLESS IT WOULD REFUSE TO COMPEL ARBITRATION. NONE OF THE JUSTICES ACCEPTED THAT APPROACH. KAVANAUGH'S OPINION WAS SUCCINCT AND METHODICAL. HE STARTED FROM THE SUPREME COURT'S REPEATED DECISIONS HOLDING THAT THE "AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE A GATEWAY ISSUE IS SIMPLY AN ADDITIONAL AGREEMENT THE PARTY SEEKING ARBITRATION ASKS THE FEDERAL COURT TO ENFORCE, AND THE [FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT] OPERATES ON THIS ADDITIONAL ARBITRATION AGREEMENT JUST AS IT DOES ON ANY OTHER." HE THEN POINTED OUT THE COURT'S FREQUENT REJECTION OF THE IDEA THAT A COURT SHOULD USE A CLAIM OF FRIVOLITY AS A BASIS FOR REJECTING ENFORCEMENT OF AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT, QUOTING EARLIER DECISIONS EXPLAINING THAT COURTS HAVE "NO BUSINESS WEIGHING THE MERITS OF THE GRIEVANCE," BECAUSE THE "AGREEMENT IS TO SUBMIT ALL GRIEVANCES TO ARBITRATION, NOT MERELY THOSE WHICH THE COURT WILL DEEM MERITORIOUS." JUSTICE KAVANAUGH DISMISSED THE NOTION THAT AN EXCEPTION VITIATING "WHOLLY GROUNDLESS" REQUESTS FOR ARBITRATION "WOULD SAVE TIME AND MONEY SYSTEMICALLY." AMONG OTHER THINGS, HE SUGGESTED, SUCH AN "EXCEPTION WOULD INEVITABLY SPARK COLLATERAL LITIGATION (WITH BRIEFING, ARGUMENT, AND OPINION WRITING) OVER WHETHER A SEEMINGLY UNMERITORIOUS ARGUMENT FOR ARBITRATION IS WHOLLY GROUNDLESS, AS OPPOSED TO GROUNDLESS. WE SEE NO REASON TO CREATE SUCH A TIME CONSUMING SIDESHOW." PERHAPS IT DID NOT ESCAPE THE NOTICE OF THE JUSTICES THAT THE LITIGATION OVER ARBITRABILITY IN THIS CASE HAS CONSUMED SEVEN YEARS: ARBITRATION MIGHT HAVE BEEN A WASTE OF TIME, BUT WOULD IT HAVE WASTED SEVEN YEARS? AS THE ARGUMENT MADE CLEAR, NONE OF THE JUSTICES SAW ANY MERIT IN A PROCESS CALLING FOR COLLATERAL LITIGATION OVER THE GATEWAY QUESTION OF ARBITRABILITY.
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A	WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP V. RAMOS, U. S. SUPREME COURT, PETITION STAGE STATE RULES LIMITING ARBITRATION IN JUNE 2019 ATLANTIC LEGAL FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF WINSTON & STRAWN'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE, WHICH CONCERNS THE ENFORCEABILITY OF AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN A NATIONAL LAW FIRM AND ONE OF ITS FORMER PARTNERS. WORK ON THIS CASE BEGAN AT THE END OF 2018. THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL'S DECISION TO STRIKE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION DISREGARDS FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT (FAA) AS CONSTRUED BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN A SERIES OF CASES, IN SEVERAL OF WHICH WE HAVE PARTICIPATED. IF NOT CORRECTED, THE CALIFORNIA COURT'S ERROR WILL SIGNIFICANTLY WEAKEN THE ABILITY OF ALL EMPLOYERS INCLUDING LAW FIRMS AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS TO RESOLVE EMPLOYMENT RELATED DISPUTES THROUGH ARBITRATION. THE PETITION ASKS THE SUPREME COURT TO CORRECT YET ANOTHER ATTEMPT BY THE CALIFORNIA COURTS TO DISFAVOR ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF THE FAA AND SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT. IN PARTICULAR, THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOCUS ON WHETHER CALIFORNIA'S UNIQUE PROCEDURAL HURDLES FOR ARBITRATING STATUTORY EMPLOYMENT LAW CLAIMS, AS WELL AS CALIFORNIA'S ARBITRATION SPECIFIC APPROACH TO SEVERABILITY, ARE PREEMPTED BY THE FAA UNDER AT&T MOBILITY LLC V. CONCEPCION, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), AND SIMILAR CASES. CALIFORNIA COURTS HAVE DEVELOPED A HIGHLY RESTRICTIVE APPROACH TO ENFORCING ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS RESPECTING STATE STATUTORY CLAIMS. SEE ARMENDARIZ V. FOUND. PSYCH HEALTHCARE, 24 CAL. 4TH 83, 113 21 (2000) (SETTING FORTH FIVE "MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LAWFUL ARBITRATION OF SUCH RIGHTS, AND INVOKING "UNCONSCIONABILITY" DOCTRINE TO STRIKE ARBITRATION PROVISIONS THAT ARE "UNFAIRLY ONE SIDED"). ALTHOUGH ARMENDARIZ WAS DECIDED BEFORE CONCEPCION, THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL HAS CONTINUED TO IMPOSE ARBITRATION SPECIFIC OBSTACLES TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION PROVISIONS IN EMPLOYMENT CONTEXTS, AND THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS DECLINED TO CORRECT THAT ERROR. SEE, E.G., SANCHEZ V. VALENCIA HOLDING CO., LLC, 61 CAL. 4TH 899 (2015); SONIC CALABASAS A, INC. V. MORENO, 57 CAL. 4TH 1109 (2013). IN ADDITION, THE SEVERABILITY RULE APPLIED BY CALIFORNIA COURTS IS ITSELF UNIQUELY HOSTILE TO ARBITRATION CONTRACTS. CALIFORNIA COURTS WILL INVALIDATE AN ENTIRE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE BASED ONLY UPON THE PRESENCE OF MORE THAN ONE UNCONSCIONABLE TERM. SEE ARMENDARIZ, 24 CAL. 4TH AT 121 27. NO SUCH RULE APPLIES TO CONTRACTS GENERALLY IN CALIFORNIA. CALIFORNIA'S APPROACH TO SEVERABILITY UNIQUELY DISFAVORS ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS CONTRARY TO THE MANDATE OF THE FAA. THE OTHER QUESTION - WHETHER CALIFORNIA'S ARMENDARIZ "MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND ARBITRATION SPECIFIC UNCONSCIONABILITY DOCTRINE SURVIVE FAA PREEMPTION RAISES AN ISSUE ON WHICH THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECENTLY AND REPEATEDLY FOCUSED ITS ATTENTION. THE COURT HAS RECENTLY GRANTED SEVERAL PETITIONS CHALLENGING STATE COURTS' REFUSAL TO HEED FAA PREEMPTION. SEE KINDRED NURSING CTRS. LTD. P'SHIP V. CLARK, 137 S. CT. 1421 (2017); NITRO LIFT TECHS., L.L.C. V. HOWARD, 568 U.S. 17 (2012); MARMET HEALTH CARE CTR., INC. V. BROWN, 565 U.S. 530 (2012); KPMG LLP V. COCCHI 565 U.S. 18 (2011). CALIFORNIA COURTS IN PARTICULAR HAVE PRODUCED A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF THESE ARBITRATION HOSTILE DECISIONS, MAKING THIS ISSUE A STRONG CANDIDATE FOR REVERSAL. SEE, E.G., DIRECTV, INC. V. IMBURGIA, 136 S. CT. 463 (2015); PRESTON V. FERRER, 552 U.S. 346 (2008). RESPONDENT HAS ASKED FOR AND HAS BEEN GRANTED ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE HER RESPONSE, AND THE PETITION IS SUB JUDICE. ALTHOUGH THE CERTIORARI PROCESS IS INHERENTLY UNPREDICTABLE, WE THINK THERE IS A REASONABLE CHANCE THE SUPREME COURT WILL GRANT REVIEW IN THIS CASE. FOR ONE THING, THE COURT RECENTLY GRANTED CERTIORARI IN MHN GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC. V. ZABOROWSKI, WHICH RAISED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER CALIFORNIA'S ARBITRATION ONLY SEVERABILITY RULE IS PREEMPTED BY THE FAA; THE COURT DID NOT DECIDE THE QUESTION BECAUSE THE CASE SETTLED IN APRIL 2016, BEFORE ORAL ARGUMENT WAS HELD. SEE 136 S. CT. 1539 (2016). THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK THAT QUESTION HAS BECOME ANY LESS "CERT-WORTHY" OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS (THE ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN SQUARELY PRESENTED SINCE MHN BECAME MOOT). SEPARATION OF POWERS - JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION. KISOR V. WILKIE - U.S. SUPREME COURT. MERITS. DECIDED JUNE 26, 2019. KISOR V. WILKIE, IS A VETERAN'S BENEFIT CASE INVOLVING A U. S. MARINE WHO SOUGHT RETROACTIVE BENEFITS FOR HIS SERVICE-RELATED PTSD. THE CASE HINGED ON THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION'S INTERPRETATION OF THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL REGULATIONS. THE COURT GRANTED REVIEW OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COURT SHOULD OVERRULE AUER V. ROBBINS AND BOWLES V. SEMINOLE ROCK AND SAND CO. AUER AND SEMINOLE ROCK "DIRECT COURTS TO DEFER TO AN AGENCY'S REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF ITS OWN AMBIGUOUS REGULATION." "AUER DEFERENCE AND "CHEVRON DEFERENCE" ARE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EXPLOSIVE GROWTH IN THE POWER OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES. ATLANTIC LEGAL BEGAN WORKING ON THIS CASE IN LATE DECEMBER 2018, AND WE FILED OUR BRIEF IN LATE JANUARY 2019. THE CASE WAS DECIDED AT THE END OF THE COURT'S TERM IN JUNE 2019. THE CORE HOLDING OF CHEVRON IS THAT WHEN A COURT CONFRONTS AN EXECUTIVE AGENCY'S "CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE WHICH IT ADMINISTERS," THEN IT WILL DEFER TO THE AGENCY SO LONG AS CONGRESS HASN'T "DIRECTLY SPOKEN" TO THE ISSUE AND THE AGENCY HAS ENGAGED IN A "PERMISSIBLE CONSTRUCTION" OF THE STATUTE. AUER REQUIRES COURTS TO DEFER TO THE AGENCY WHEN THE AGENCY'S OWN REGULATION IS AMBIGUOUS. THE RESULT IS A REGIME OF DEFERENCE UPON DEFERENCE THAT GIVES REGULATORY AGENCIES ENORMOUS AUTHORITY TO CRAFT AND THEN INTERPRET THEIR OWN REGULATIONS AND GIVES AGENCIES AN INCENTIVE TO ISSUE AMBIGUOUS RULES. THIS DEFERENCE PERMITS EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES TO EXPAND THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE AND ESSENTIALLY COMBINE ALL THREE CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONS IN A SINGLE BUREAUCRATIC AGENCY WHICH IS THE LAWMAKER THAT DRAFTS REGULATIONS, THE JUDGE THAT INTERPRETS ITS OWN LAWS, AND THE EXECUTIVE THAT ENFORCES THE LAWS THAT IT HAS DRAFTED AND INTERPRETED. UNDER CHEVRON THE PEOPLE ARE REQUIRED TO GUESS WHETHER THE STATUTE WILL BE DECLARED "AMBIGUOUS" (COURTS OFTEN DISAGREE ON WHAT QUALIFIES); AND REQUIRED TO GUESS WHETHER AN AGENCY'S INTERPRETATION WILL BE DEEMED "REASONABLE." EVEN IF THE PEOPLE SOMEHOW MANAGE TO GUESS CORRECTLY, THEY MUST REMAIN ALERT TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE AGENCY WILL REVERSE ITS CURRENT VIEW BASED MERELY ON THE SHIFT OF POLITICAL WINDS. THE AUER DOCTRINE AMPLIFIES ALL OF THE CHEVRON PROBLEMS. UNDER AUER, THERE ARE ACTUAL ADVANTAGES IN DRAFTING BROAD AND VAGUE REGULATIONS: THEY GIVE REGULATORS MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY, BUT FOR THE REGULATED COMMUNITY THEY CREATE LEGAL UNCERTAINTY. ATLANTIC LEGAL AND OTHER AMICI URGED THE SUPREME COURT TO RECONSIDER FEDERAL AGENCY DEFERENCE DOCTRINES, INCLUDING CHEVRON V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL AND AUER V. ROBBINS. THE APPLICATION OF THESE DOCTRINES VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF SEPARATION OF POWERS, DUE PROCESS AND FEDERALISM BY PERMITTING UNELECTED FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS TO PRE EMPT STATE LAWS, OUTSIDE THE PROCESS PRESCRIBED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. THESE DOCTRINES UNDERMINE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY GRANTING BINDING INTERPRETIVE AUTHORITY TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THOUGH KISOR'S PLURALITY OPINION ASSERTS THAT AUER DEFERENCE PROMOTES DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY BY GRANTING TO EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS, INSTEAD OF ARTICLE III JUDGES, FINAL AUTHORITY OVER THE MEANING OF AMBIGUOUS REGULATIONS, THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. SEPARATION OF POWERS NOT THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY PROVIDES THE FUNDAMENTAL SAFEGUARD FOR BOTH DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. IN A FRACTURED 5-4 OPINION, THE COURT MISSED A CHANCE TO RESTORE THE ROLE OF FEDERALISM AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS IN FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. WHILE THE KISOR MAJORITY SOUGHT TO "REINFORCE THE LIMITS AND "CABIN [] THE SCOPE" OF AUER DEFERENCE TO MAKE IT MORE RESPECTFUL OF THESE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, AND ALL JUSTICES EXPRESSED THE BELIEF THAT AUER NOW MEANS A LOT LESS THAN IT DID BEFORE. BUT THE CURE FOR AUER'S OVERREACH MAY TURN OUT TO BE ALMOST AS BAD AS THE DISEASE. THE MAJORITY LIMITS AUER BY ARTICULATING A SERIES OF EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE THEMSELVES AMBIGUOUS. "WHETHER TO APPLY [AUER] DEPENDS ON A RANGE OF CONSIDERATIONS, AND "THE LIMITS OF AUER DEFERENCE ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO ANY RIGID TEST." IN DETERMINING WHETHER AUER APPLIES AT ALL, A COURT MUST CONSIDER "THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF THE AGENCY INTERPRETATION." THIS INQUIRY "DOES NOT REDUCE TO ANY EXHAUSTIVE TEST," BUT DOES RELY ON "SOME ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT MARKERS." THESE "MARKERS AND THE EXCEPTIONS IS LIKELY TO GENERATE VOLUMINOUS "THRESHOLD" LITIGATION OVER WHETHER AUER APPLIES AT ALL, SIMILAR TO THE "THRESHOLD" LITIGATION THAT ALREADY BEDEVILS THE APPLICATION OF CHEVRON DEFERENCE.
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A	THE KISOR MAJORITY'S FAILURE TO FULLY RESPECT PRINCIPLES OF SEPARATION OF POWERS, CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY IS DISAPPOINTING, BUT, HOPEFULLY JUST THE BEGINNING OF EFFORTS TO LIMIT BUREAUCRATIC POWER. ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ON THE MERITS URGING THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO OVERTURN AUER V. ROBBINS, A PRECEDENT THAT, WE ARGUE, VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY REQUIRING THE JUDICIARY TO TREAT AS BINDING THE EXECUTIVE'S INTERPRETATIONS OF ITS OWN REGULATIONS. WE URGED THE COURT TO OVERTURN AUER AND RESTORE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS UNDER WHICH IT IS "THE DUTY OF THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT TO SAY WHAT THE LAW IS." MARBURY V. MADISON, 1 CRANCH 137, 177 (1803). DESPITE ITS SHORTCOMINGS, KISOR MAY BE ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CASES OF THE COURT'S MOST RECENT TERM. SOUND SCIENCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT EVIDENCE -PROOF OF MEDICAL CAUSATION JUNI V. A.O.. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, ASBESTOS. BURDEN OF PROOF. "CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE" THEORY. COURTS HAVE LONG TRIED TO MANAGE ASBESTOS DOCKETS SWOLLEN WITH CLAIMANTS ALLEGING THEY HAVE ASBESTOSIS, LUNG CANCER OR MESOTHELIOMA. EARLY ASBESTOS LAWSUITS TARGETED PRODUCERS OF ASBESTOS AND ASBESTOS CONTAINING PRODUCTS, WHICH NUMBERED IN THE HUNDREDS (IN 1982, ABOUT 300 SUCH COMPANIES). HOWEVER, AS THESE DEFENDANTS DECLARED BANKRUPTCY (AND THE DIRECT PRODUCERS ESTABLISHED "TRUST FUNDS" TO COMPENSATE VICTIMS), WAVES OF NEW LAWSUITS SPREAD TO COMPANIES FARTHER REMOVED FROM DIRECT PRODUCTION. THE MOST COMMON "DEEP POCKET" DEFENDANTS ARE MANUFACTURERS OF MACHINERY THAT USED ASBESTOS AS INSULATING, GASKET OR "FRICTION" MATERIAL (SUCH AS AUTOMOBILE BRAKES AND CLUTCHES) OR CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL THAT USED MATERIALS THAT HAD AN INCIDENTAL AMOUNT OF ASBESTOS (SUCH AS WALL BOARD, JOINT COMPOUND, CEMENT BLOCKS, PLASTER, ETC.). NEW YORK COUNTY SUPREME COURT (NEW YORK STATE'S TRIAL COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION) IN JUNI V. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS SET ASIDE A JURY VERDICT TOTALING $11 MILLION AWARDED AGAINST FORD MOTOR COMPANY IN FAVOR OF A MOTOR VEHICLE MECHANIC WHO HAD DIED FROM MESOTHELIOMA. THE TRIAL COURT'S OPINION IS A THOROUGH AND CLEAR EXPLICATION OF THE CLASH BETWEEN EXPERTS' HYPOTHESES, AND "GOOD" SCIENCE. IT EXPOSED THE TENSIONS BETWEEN WHAT THE PLAINTIFF'S EXPERTS CLAIMED AND WHAT NEW YORK'S LEGAL STANDARDS REQUIRE FOR RELIABLE AND ADMISSIBLE EXPERT TESTIMONY. THE TRIAL COURT REJECTED" THE "SINGLE FIBER" THEORY, WHICH IS BASED ON THE NOTION THAT A "SINGLE FIBER" OF ANY TYPE OF ASBESTOS CAUSES DISEASE CUMULATIVELY AND, THEREFORE, IS A "SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR" IN CAUSING THE DISEASE. SINGLE FIBER TESTIMONY HAS BEEN REJECTED BY A GROWING NUMBER OF APPELLATE COURTS OUTSIDE NEW YORK. THE TRIAL COURT ANALYZED PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT TESTIMONY AND HELD THAT THE RELIABILITY OF THESE OPINIONS AND THE UNDERLYING METHODOLOGIES WERE GOVERNED BY THE ADMISSIBILITY STANDARDS ARTICULATED IN PARKER V. MOBIL OIL CORP. AND CORNELL V. 360 W. 51ST ST. REALTY. IF "NOVEL" SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS INVOLVED, THE COURT APPLIES THE "GENERAL ACCEPTANCE" TEST ARTICULATED IN FRYE V. UNITED STATES (D.C. CIR. 1924) TO DETERMINE "WHETHER THE ACCEPTED TECHNIQUES, WHEN PROPERLY PERFORMED, GENERATE RESULTS ACCEPTED AS RELIABLE WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY GENERALLY." IF THE ANSWER IS "NO," THE TESTIMONY MUST BE EXCLUDED. IF THE ANSWER IS "YES," THE PROPONENT OF THE NOVEL SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY HAS SURVIVED THE THRESHOLD TEST BUT STILL HAS TO GET PAST THE ADMISSIBILITY "GATE AND THE PROFFERED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE MUST THEN MEET A SECOND, "FOUNDATIONAL RELIABILITY" INQUIRY. THIS SECOND ADMISSIBILITY STANDARD APPLIES TO ALL EXPERT TESTIMONY, NOT JUST NOVEL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. IN PARKER, THE COURT SAID THE FRYE INQUIRY IS "SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE ADMISSIBILITY QUESTION APPLIED TO ALL EVIDENCE WHETHER THERE IS A PROPER FOUNDATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACCEPTED METHODS WERE APPROPRIATELY EMPLOYED IN A PARTICULAR CASE." PARKER DECLARED THAT THE FOCUS MOVES "FROM THE GENERAL RELIABILITY CONCERNS OF FRYE TO THE SPECIFIC RELIABILITY OF THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED TO GENERATE THE EVIDENCE PROFFERED AND WHETHER THEY ESTABLISH A FOUNDATION FOR THE RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE AT TRIAL." PLAINTIFF'S GENERAL CAUSATION EXPERT TESTIFIED THAT ALL INSTANCES OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE ARE "VIEWED AS A WHOLE," CUMULATIVELY CONTRIBUTING TO AND CAUSING THE ILLNESS. HE STATED THAT "EVERY PART OF THAT EXPOSURE" ACTS AS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR AND NO EXPOSURE CAN BE DISCOUNTED, NO MATTER HOW REMOTE THE OCCURRENCE, AS "IT'S THE CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE THAT MATTERS." HE ALSO OPINED THAT CHRYSOTILE FIBERS IN FRICTION PRODUCTS (E.G., BRAKES, CLUTCHES AND GASKETS) CAN CAUSE MESOTHELIOMA. MARKOWITZ ACKNOWLEDGED THAT 21 OF 22 EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES ON WORKERS WITH FRICTION PRODUCTS "YIELDED NO EVIDENCE OF AN INCREASED RISK OF DEVELOPING AN ASBESTOS RELATED DISEASE," BUT HE RELIED ON INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE STUDIES THAT INVOLVED FACTORY WORKERS WHO PRODUCED FRICTION PRODUCTS FROM RAW ASBESTOS. PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT ON SPECIFIC CAUSATION, TESTIFIED THAT DECEDENT'S CUMULATIVE ASBESTOS EXPOSURES CAUSED HIS MESOTHELIOMA; THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SEPARATE OUT OR EXCLUDE ANY PARTICULAR EXPOSURE; AND THAT ALL OF JUNI'S ASBESTOS EXPOSURES IN AND AROUND WORK ON BRAKES AND CLUTCHES CONSTITUTED "SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTING FACTORS IN CAUSING HIS DISEASE." THE COURT LISTED THE ITEMS UPON WHICH THE EXPERT BASED HER OPINION. HOWEVER, THE EXPERT CONCEDED THAT SHE DID NOT KNOW THE AMOUNT, DURATION, OR FREQUENCY OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPOSURES TO PRODUCTS WITH ASBESTOS CONTAINING DUST SOLD OR DISTRIBUTED BY DEFENDANT. SHE COULD NOT AND DID NOT ESTABLISH A DOSE RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP OR EVEN MINIMALLY QUANTIFY JUNI'S EXPOSURES. NEW YORK LAW REQUIRES PLAINTIFF TO ESTABLISH SOME QUANTIFIABLE LEVEL OF EXPOSURE. PARKER REQUIRES SUCH QUANTIFICATION. THE "EVERY SINGLE EXPOSURE" ARGUMENT IS IRRECONCILABLE WITH THE WELL-RECOGNIZED SCIENTIFIC REQUIREMENT THAT THE AMOUNT, DURATION AND FREQUENCY OF EXPOSURE BE CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING THE SUFFICIENCY OF AN EXPOSURE TO INCREASE THE RISK OF DEVELOPING A DISEASE. IN PARKER, A SERVICE STATION EMPLOYEE LINKED HIS LEUKEMIA DIAGNOSIS TO EXPOSURE TO BENZENE IN GASOLINE. IN A 2006 DECISION, THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THAT PLAINTIFFS NEEDED TO SHOW EVIDENCE THEY HAD BEEN EXPOSED TO LEVELS OF TOXIN THAT COULD HAVE CAUSED THE DISEASE. IN NOVEMBER 2018 THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT FORD MOTOR CO. CAUSED JUNI'S MESOTHELIOMA, AFFIRMING THE DECISION THAT REVERSED AN $11 MILLION JURY VERDICT HOLDING THE AUTO MANUFACTURER PARTLY LIABLE FOR HIS INJURIES. THE COURT SAID IN A ONE PARAGRAPH MEMORANDUM THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TOSSING THE JURY'S VERDICT SHOULD BE UPHELD BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, OR LACK THEREOF, PRESENTED DURING TRIAL: "VIEWING THE EVIDENCE IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO PLAINTIFFS, THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW TO ESTABLISH THAT RESPONDENT FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S CONDUCT WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DECEDENT'S INJURIES PURSUANT TO THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN PARKER V. MOBIL OIL." ATLANTIC LEGAL FILED A SUBSTANTIAL AND DETAILED AMICUS BRIEF ONE OF ONLY A FEW FILED IN SUPPORT OF FORD. IT IS SOMEWHAT DISAPPOINTING THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS DISPOSED OF JUNI IN SUMMARY FASHION. WE, ALONG WITH THE PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENSE BARS, ANTICIPATED THAT JUNI WOULD BE A WATERSHED CASE. PERHAPS THE COURT VIEWED THE ISSUE AS "ROUTINE" AFTER THE SERIES OF CASES IT HAS DECIDED IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, (PARKER V. MOBIL OIL CORP., 7 N.Y.3D 434 (2006), CORNELL V. 360 W. 51ST ST. REALTY, LLC, 22 N.Y.3D 762 (2014) SEAN R. V. BMW OF N. AM., LLC, 26 N.Y.3D 801 (N.Y. 2016)) IN WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS (A) CLARIFIED THE STANDARDS FOR A TOXIC TORT PLAINTIFF'S BURDEN AND (B) HAS CLARIFIED THE STANDARDS FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT EVIDENCE. DELISLE V. CRANE CO. - FLORIDA SUPREME COURT - MERIT - SEPARATION OF POWERS, SOUND SCIENCE. DECIDED OCTOBER 2018. IN DELISLE THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT REVERSED ITSELF IN A SIGNIFICANT CASE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY ON EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS AND CAUSATION OF MESOTHELIOMA. THIS CASE INVOLVED TWO ISSUES: (1) SEPARATION OF POWERS WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE CAN ENACT A LAW GOVERNING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, OR WHETHER THAT INFRINGES THE POWER OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH; AND (2) WHETHER AN EXPERT'S CAUSATION TESTIMONY BASED ON "CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE" THAT DOES NOT IDENTIFY A SPECIFIC DEFENDANT'S PRODUCT AS THE CAUSE OF THE DISEASE IS CONSISTENT WITH SOUND SCIENCE AND ADMISSIBLE.
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A	THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT INITIALLY HELD THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE'S ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF EVIDENCE ADOPTING A DAUBERT STANDARD CONTRAVENED THE JUDICIARY'S CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DETERMINE JUDICIAL PROCEDURES AND THUS WAS VOID. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE SAME CASE IN WHICH ATLANTIC LEGAL FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL PROMINENT SCIENTISTS -- BUT AFTER A CHANGE IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE COURT, THE COURT ITSELF APPROVED THE DAUBERT-LIKE ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH WE HAD ADVOCATED. AS A RESULT, FLORIDA HAS JOINED A GROWING MAJORITY OF STATES THAT HAVE ADOPTED DAUBERT CRITERIA. THIS CASE INVOLVES THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY ON CAUSATION OF MESOTHELIOMA AND EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS. THERE WERE TWO ISSUES: (1) SEPARATION OF POWERS WHETHER THE STATE LEGISLATURE CAN ENACT A LAW GOVERNING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, OR WHETHER THAT INFRINGES THE POWER OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH TO CONTROL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS; AND (2) WHETHER AN EXPERT'S CAUSATION TESTIMONY BASED ON A "CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE" THEORY THAT DOES NOT IDENTIFY A SPECIFIC DEFENDANT'S PRODUCT AS THE CAUSE OF THE DISEASE OR QUANTIFY THE DECEDENT'S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS IN DEFENDANT'S PRODUCT IS CONSISTENT WITH SOUND SCIENCE AND ADMISSIBLE. IN LATE 2017, ATLANTIC LEGAL FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL PROMINENT SCIENTISTS WHO ARE EXPERTS IN FIELDS RELEVANT TO MEDICAL CAUSATION. IN THAT BRIEF WE ARGUED THAT THE "CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE" THEORY IS INCONSISTENT WITH APPROPRIATE SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY AS TO MEDICAL CAUSATION, WHICH REQUIRES THAT BOTH "GENERAL CAUSATION" (THAT A PARTICULAR SUBSTANCE CAN CAUSE THE DISEASE WHICH INJURED THE PLAINTIFF) AND "SPECIFIC CAUSATION" (THAT THE INTENSITY, DURATION AND DOSAGE OF THE SUBSTANCE TO WHICH THE PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED HAS BEEN SHOWN TO CAUSE THE DISEASE IN QUESTION. THIS IS ESPECIALLY ESSENTIAL WHERE PERSONS ARE EXPOSED TO "BACKGROUND" LEVELS OF THE ACCUSED SUBSTANCE AND WHERE THE PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO A PARTICULAR SUBSTANCE FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES. EDUCATION CHOICE ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION HAS SUPPORTED THE CHARTER SCHOOL COMMUNITY BY PROVIDING LABOR LAW GUIDANCE TO SCHOOL LEADERSHIP THROUGH A SERIES OF BOOKS ENTITLED LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD. THESE BOOKS ADDRESSED THE PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT AREA OF UNION ORGANIZING, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND RELATED EMPLOYEE RIGHTS AT CHARTER SCHOOLS. THESE ISSUES HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN DETERMINED BY THE INDIVIDUAL STATES' CHARTER SCHOOL LEGISLATION AND PUBLIC SECTOR LABOR LAW, SINCE ALL CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AS DEFINED BY THE VARIOUS STATE STATUTES. SEVERAL YEARS AGO, WE PUBLISHED A SERIES OF MONOGRAPHS, "LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD WHAT CHARTER SCHOOL LEADERS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT UNION ORGANIZING" FOR SEVERAL LARGE STATES (CALIFORNIA, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, NEW JERSEY, AND NEW YORK). LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD IS DESIGNED TO ANSWER IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ABOUT THE UNIONIZATION PROCESS, WHAT CHARTER LEADERS MUST DO TO FOSTER POSITIVE LABOR RELATIONS, AND WHERE AND HOW TO SEEK HELP TO IMPROVE OPERATIONAL QUALITY. BECAUSE OF CHANGES IN THE RELEVANT LAW, IN JUNE 2017 WE PUBLISHED A REVISED EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE-SPECIFIC "LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD" MONOGRAPH, WHICH WAS PRINTED IN LARGE QUANTITY FOR THE CONTINUING GUIDANCE OF CHARTER SCHOOL LEADERS IN DEALING WITH UNION ORGANIZING OR EFFORTS TO DERAIL CHARTER SCHOOL PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION INITIATIVES AND CHARTER RENEWALS. THE CALIFORNIA CHARTER SCHOOL ASSOCIATION HAS RECOGNIZED OUR FOUNDATION'S GOOD WORK IN THIS REGARD, AS EVIDENCED BY THE ENGAGING PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION OF THE"LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD" PUBLICATION BY THE CCSA'S PRESIDENT AND CEO. THE LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD PUBLICATION HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO A LARGE NUMBER OF THE 1,200 CHARTER SCHOOLS IN CALIFORNIA. THE CCSA HAS PRAISED THE PUBLICATION FOR ITS USEFUL GUIDANCE TO CHARTER SCHOOL LEADERS. WE ANTICIPATE THAT A REPUBLICAN-APPOINTED MAJORITY OF THE NLRB WILL PERHAPS FOLLOW A DIFFERENT PATH THAN ITS OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PREDECESSOR. THE CURRENT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS MORE CHARTER-FRIENDLY, AND CHARTERS MAY PROLIFERATE, CREATING EVEN GREATER DEMAND FOR LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD. BECAUSE OF CHANGES IN THE COMPOSITION AND POLICIES OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AND THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THERE IS A NEED TO UPDATE THE RESPECTIVE STATE-SPECIFIC MONOGRAPHS TO THE SERIES (AND ADD ADDITIONAL STATES). WE HOPE TO PUBLISH NEW EDITIONS OF SEVERAL STATE-SPECIFIC VERSIONS OF LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD, FOLLOWING THE CALIFORNIA EDITION, TO HIGHLIGHT SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS IN LABOR LAW AS APPLIED TO CHARTERS. WHEN THE LEVELING SERIES WAS INITIALLY PUBLISHED, IT RAISED THE THEN-THEORETICAL QUESTION OF WHETHER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT (NLRA), AND NOT STATE LAW, COULD BE DEEMED TO GOVERN CHARTER SCHOOLS, DESPITE THEIR STATES' CHARACTERIZATION AS "PUBLIC SCHOOLS." ALTHOUGH THERE IS VARIATION FROM STATE TO STATE, IN MOST INSTANCES, WHILE CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE FUNDED AND REGULATED BY STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, THEY ARE CREATED BY AND ADMINISTERED BY PRIVATE ENTITIES. WE WERE SOMEWHAT PRESCIENT, AS THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (NLRB) SOON STARTED TO ASSERT FEDERAL LABOR LAW JURISDICTION OVER CHARTER SCHOOLS IN VARIOUS STATES. THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LABOR LAWS OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATES AND THE NLRA, AND PARTIES IN THESE CASES HAVE THEIR OWN PREFERENCES. IN SOME CASES, UNIONS SOUGHT NLRB JURISDICTION; IN OTHER CASES, EMPLOYERS SOUGHT IT. AS THE NLRB HAS DECIDED THAT CHARTER SCHOOLS IN MORE STATES ARE WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, INTERESTED PARTIES ON BOTH SIDES HAVE RAISED THEIR CONCERNS. HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR THAT NO STATE PROVIDES PROTECTIONS AND RIGHTS TO EMPLOYEES AS BROAD AS DOES THE NLRA. LABOR LAW IS INHERENTLY POLITICAL. THE ISSUE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS HAS ALSO BEEN HIGHLY POLITICIZED. THE NLRB BEGAN ITS MARCH TOWARD CHARTER SCHOOL JURISDICTION DURING THE OBAMA YEARS, WHEN DEMOCRATS HELD A MAJORITY OF SEATS ON THE BOARD. IN THOSE YEARS, THE REPUBLICAN MINORITY WERE VOCAL DISSENTERS ON THIS SUBJECT. TO DATE, EITHER THE NLRB, ITS REGIONAL OFFICES, OR ITS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES HAVE EXERCISED JURISDICTION OVER CHARTER SCHOOLS IN NEW YORK, CONNECTICUT, PENNSYLVANIA, MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS, CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, LOUISIANA, MINNESOTA, OHIO, OREGON, TENNESSEE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. IN FACT, IN ONLY ONE TEXAS CASE DID THE BOARD DECLINE JURISDICTION DUE TO A GREATER LEVEL OF AUTHORITY OVER THE CHARTER SCHOOL RETAINED BY THE STATE. NOW THAT THE BOARD HAS A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY, THE NLRB IS CONSIDERING EXERCISING ITS VERY RARELY UTILIZED STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO DECLINE JURISDICTION OVER ALL CHARTER SCHOOLS NATIONALLY.A CASE, KIPP ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL, NLRB 02-RD-191760, IS PRESENTLY PENDING AT THE BOARD IN WHICH A NEW YORK CHARTER SCHOOL SEEKS FEDERAL JURISDICTION TO SUPPORT ITS EMPLOYEES' NLRB PETITION FOR A DECERTIFICATION VOTE. THE BOARD IS USING THAT CASE AS A FORUM TO DECIDE WHETHER TO WITHDRAW ITS JURISDICTION OVER ALL CHARTER SCHOOLS AN OUTCOME THAT NO PARTY IN THE LITIGATION REQUESTS. THE NLRB ISSUED A CALL FOR AMICI TO FILE BRIEFS. ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION CONSULTED WITH STATE AND NATIONAL CHARTER SCHOOL GROUPS ON THIS SUBJECT AND DECIDED NOT TO FILE AN AMICUS BRIEF BECAUSE SCHOOLS AND CHARTER SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONS IT SUPPORTS ARE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE MATTER. WHILE THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF A BOARD DECISION IS MIXED, IT MUST BE NOTED THAT A REJECTION OF JURISDICTION NOW, AFTER THE NLRB HAS DE FACTO GRANTED COVERAGE OF THE LAW TO EMPLOYEES AND THE PARTIES IN SCORES OF CASES NATIONWIDE WOULD BE UNPRECEDENTED AND WOULD IN EFFECT TELL HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF EMPLOYEES THAT THEY NO LONGER HAVE FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11B	ATLANTIC LEGAL HAS ENGAGED AN OUTSIDE ACCOUNTING FIRM TO PREPARE ITS FORM 990. THE DRAFT FORM 990, PREPARED BY THE OUTSIDE ACCOUNTING FIRM, WAS PROVIDED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND EACH DIRECTOR BY ELECTRONIC MAIL PRIOR TO FILING WITH THE IRS. EACH DIRECTOR WAS ASKED TO REVIEW THE DRAFT FORM 990 AND PROVIDE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. THE OFFICERS OF THE FOUNDATION AND THE FOUNDATION'S BOOKKEEPING CONSULTANT WERE IN FREQUENT COMMUNICATION WITH THE FOUNDATION'S OUTSIDE ACCOUNTANTS AND AUDITORS BY ELECTRONIC MAIL AND TELEPHONE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION, RAISE QUESTIONS AND PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THE FORM 990 PRIOR TO FILING WITH THE IRS. AFTER ALL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, THE FINAL FORM 990 IS PREPARED AND SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOUNDATION FOR HIS APPROVAL. IT IS THEN FILED WITH THE IRS.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C	THE FOUNDATION'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY IS SUBMITTED ANNUALLY TO EACH BOARD MEMBER, OFFICER, ADVISOR AND STAFF MEMBER FOR REVIEW AND SIGNATURE. IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT AN ACTUAL CONFLICT EXISTS, THE BOARD MEMBER, OFFICER, ADVISOR OR STAFF MEMBER WILL BE NOTIFIED AND THE MATTER WILL BE INVESTIGATED BY THE CHAIRMAN. NO BOARD MEMBER WILL BE ALLOWED TO VOTE OR PARTICIPATE IN BOARD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ANY MATTERS INVOLVING THE CONFLICT UNTIL IT IS RESOLVED.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15	THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF ATLANTIC LEGAL'S BOARD WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF THE PRESIDENT, DETERMINES THE COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF THE SENIOR STAFF, I.E., THE PRESIDENT AND THE SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENTS. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CONSIDERS COMPENSATION LEVELS PAID BY SIMILARLY SITUATED ORGANIZATIONS FOR FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE POSITIONS: COMPARABLE SALARIES OF OTHER EMPLOYERS OF LAWYERS IN THE SAME GEOGRAPHICAL MARKET AND NATIONWIDE. THIS PROCESS WAS LAST UNDERTAKEN IN NOVEMBER 2018 AND WAS DOCUMENTED IN THE MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19	THE FOUNDATION MAKES ITS FORM 990 AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 6104 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. THE RETURN IS POSTED ON GUIDESTAR.ORG AND OTHER SIMILAR TYPES OF WEBSITES. IN ADDITION, THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, FORM 990, FORM 1023, AND BY-LAWS ARE ALSO AVAILABLE UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OR BY CALLING THE ORGANIZATION DIRECTLY.
FORM 990, PART XII, LINE 2C:	THE FOUNDATION IS GOVERNED BY A 27 MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 26 OF WHOM ARE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS. THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS SERVE WITHOUT COMPENSATION. THE BOARD ORDINARILY MEETS 3 TIMES A YEAR. BETWEEN BOARD MEETINGS, THE FOUNDATION IS DIRECTED BY AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CONSISTING OF 10 DIRECTORS, 9 OF WHOM ARE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS. THE 9 INDEPENDENT MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ALSO ACT AS THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OVERSIGHT OF THE AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SELECTION OF AN INDEPENDENT OUTSIDE ACCOUNTANT/AUDITOR. THIS PROCESS HAS NOT CHANGED FROM THE PRIOR YEAR.

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Cat. No. 51056K

Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2018

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

		Prior Year	Current Year
8	Contributions and grants (Part VIII, line 1h) .........	266,841	517,652
9	Program service revenue (Part VIII, line 2g) .........	0	0
10	Investment income (Part VIII, column (A), lines 3, 4, and 7d ) ....	255	338
11	Other revenue (Part VIII, column (A), lines 5, 6d, 8c, 9c, 10c, and 11e)	0	-16,476
12	Total revenue—add lines 8 through 11 (must equal Part VIII, column (A), line 12)	267,096	501,514
13	Grants and similar amounts paid (Part IX, column (A), lines 1–3 )...	0	0
14	Benefits paid to or for members (Part IX, column (A), line 4).....	0	0
15	Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits (Part IX, column (A), lines 5–10)	264,420	263,099
16a	Professional fundraising fees (Part IX, column (A), line 11e) .....	0	0
b	Total fundraising expenses (Part IX, column (D), line 25) 52,944
17	Other expenses (Part IX, column (A), lines 11a–11d, 11f–24e)....	106,173	106,038
18	Total expenses. Add lines 13–17 (must equal Part IX, column (A), line 25)	370,593	369,137
19	Revenue less expenses. Subtract line 18 from line 12.......	-103,497	132,377
		Beginning of Current Year	End of Year
20	Total assets (Part X, line 16).............	65,397	194,555
21	Total liabilities (Part X, line 26).............	20,836	19,008
22	Net assets or fund balances. Subtract line 21 from line 20.....	44,561	175,547

Sign Here

	Signature of officer	Date

	Type or print name and title


4a	(Code: ) (Expenses $ 237,124 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )
	ATLANTIC LEGAL IS A NONPROFIT, NONPARTISAN PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM WITH A HISTORY OF FIGHTING FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS BY ENSURING THAT COURTS APPLY SOUND LEGAL AND SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES.ATLANTIC LEGAL CHALLENGES THE ABUSE OF POWER BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE MISUSE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY PRIVATE PARTIES TO DENY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.ATLANTIC LEGAL PROVIDES LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND COUNSEL, WITHOUT FEE, TO INDIVIDUALS (INCLUDING SCIENTISTS, EDUCATORS, AND PROMINENT PUBLIC SERVANTS), CORPORATIONS, TRADE ASSOCIATIONS, AND OTHER GROUPS. [SEE CONTINUATION ON SCHEDULE O]

4b	(Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )












4c	(Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )












4d	Other program services (Describe in Schedule O.)
	(Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )
4e	Total program service expenses237,124

(A) Name and Title	(B) Average hours per week (list any hours for related organizations below dotted line)	(C) Position (do not check more than one box, unless person is both an officer and a director/trustee)		(D) Reportable compensation from the organization (W- 2/1099-MISC)	(E) Reportable compensation from related organizations (W- 2/1099-MISC)	(F) Estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations
(A) Name and Title
(18) MARYANNE R LAVAN........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(19) ALINNE MAJARIAN JD........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(20) GREGORY J MORROW ESQ........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(21) WILLIAM G PRIMPS........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(22) NEVIN SANLI........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(23) PHILIP R SELLINGER........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(24) WILLIAM H SLATTERY........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(25) JAY B STEPHENS........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(26) CLIFFORD B STORMS........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(27) CHARLES R WORK........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(28) MARTIN S KAUFMAN EXEC VP........................................................................ GEN. COUNSEL & ASST. TREAS	50.00 .......................		X	156,305	0	179

1b	Sub-Total................
c	Total from continuation sheets to Part VII, Section A....
d	Total (add lines 1b and 1c)...........	222,305	0	179

1	Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities: THE MISSION OF THE ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION IS TO ADVANCE THE RULE OF LAW BY ADVOCATING LIMITED AND EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT; FREE ENTERPRISE; INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY; SCHOOL CHOICE; AND SOUND SCIENCE.
2	Check this box
3	Number of voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1a) ........	3	27
4	Number of independent voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1b) .....	4	26
5	Total number of individuals employed in calendar year 2018 (Part V, line 2a) ......	5	2
6	Total number of volunteers (estimate if necessary) .............	6	52
7a	Total unrelated business revenue from Part VIII, column (C), line 12 ........	7a	0
b	Net unrelated business taxable income from Form 990-T, line 34 .........	7b	0

(A) Name and business address	(B) Description of services	(C) Compensation





2 Total number of independent contractors (including but not limited to those listed above) who received more than $100,000 of compensation from the organization 0

1a	Federated campaigns..		1a
b	Membership dues..		1b
c	Fundraising events..		1c	191,200
d	Related organizations		1d
e	Government grants (contributions)		1e

f	All other contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts not included above		1f	326,452

g	Noncash contributions included in lines 1a - 1f:$ 4,054
h Total. Add lines 1a-1f.......		517,652

		Business Code
2a
b
c
d
e
f	All other program service revenue.
g	Total. Add lines 2a–2f ....

3 Investment income (including dividends, interest, and othersimilar amounts) ......			338			338
4 Income from investment of tax-exempt bond proceeds
5 Royalties...........
		(ii) Personal	(i) Real
6a	Gross rents
b	Less: rental expenses
c	Rental income or (loss)
d	Net rental income or (loss)......
		(ii) Other	(i) Securities
7a	Gross amount from sales of assets other than inventory
b	Less: cost or other basis and sales expenses
c	Gain or (loss)
d	Net gain or (loss).....
8a	Gross income from fundraising events (not including $ 191,200of contributions reported on line 1c). See Part IV, line 18 ....
	a		55,800
b	Less: direct expenses ...b		72,276
c	Net income or (loss) from fundraising events..			-16,476			-16,476
9a	Gross income from gaming activities. See Part IV, line 19 ...
	a
b	Less: direct expenses ...b
c	Net income or (loss) from gaming activities..
10a	Gross sales of inventory, less returns and allowances ..
	a
b	Less: cost of goods sold ..b
c	Net income or (loss) from sales of inventory..
Business Code			Miscellaneous Revenue
11a
b
c
d	All other revenue ....
e	Total. Add lines 11a–11d ......
12	Total revenue. See Instructions......			501,514	0	0	-16,138

1	Grants and other assistance to domestic organizations and domestic governments. See Part IV, line 21
2	Grants and other assistance to domestic individuals. See Part IV, line 22
3	Grants and other assistance to foreign organizations, foreign governments, and foreign individuals. See Part IV, line 15 and 16.
4	Benefits paid to or for members
5	Compensation of current officers, directors, trustees, and key employees ....	223,484	170,145	33,337	20,002
6	Compensation not included above, to disqualified persons (as defined under section 4958(f)(1)) and persons described in section 4958(c)(3)(B) ....
7	Other salaries and wages	25,937	19,743	3,871	2,323
8	Pension plan accruals and contributions (include section 401(k) and 403(b) employer contributions) ....
9	Other employee benefits .......
10	Payroll taxes ...........	13,678	13,073	415	190
11	Fees for services (non-employees):
a	Management ......
b	Legal .........	6,823	6,823
c	Accounting ...........	15,000		15,000
d	Lobbying ...........
e	Professional fundraising services. See Part IV, line 17
f	Investment management fees ......
g	Other (If line 11g amount exceeds 10% of line 25, column (A) amount, list line 11g expenses on Schedule O)	21,168	7,984	5,360	7,824
12	Advertising and promotion ....
13	Office expenses .......	33,885	10,387	4,916	18,582
14	Information technology ......	2,550	1,275		1,275
15	Royalties ..
16	Occupancy ...........	1,500	1,157	214	129
17	Travel ............	10,458	2,974	5,098	2,386
18	Payments of travel or entertainment expenses for any federal, state, or local public officials .
19	Conferences, conventions, and meetings ....	8,125	779	7,113	233
20	Interest ...........
21	Payments to affiliates .......
22	Depreciation, depletion, and amortization ..
23	Insurance ...	5,488	2,784	2,704
24	Other expenses. Itemize expenses not covered above (List miscellaneous expenses in line 24e. If line 24e amount exceeds 10% of line 25, column (A) amount, list line 24e expenses on Schedule O.)
a	STATE REGISTRATION FEES	1,041		1,041
b
c
d
e	All other expenses
25	Total functional expenses. Add lines 1 through 24e	369,137	237,124	79,069	52,944
26	Joint costs. Complete this line only if the organization reported in column (B) joint costs from a combined educational campaign and fundraising solicitation. Check here if following SOP 98-2 (ASC 958-720).

1	Cash–non-interest-bearing ........		24,516	1	141,224
2	Savings and temporary cash investments .........		3,692	2	3,959
3	Pledges and grants receivable, net ......		3,500	3	8,100
4	Accounts receivable, net .............		5,567	4	3,245
5	Loans and other receivables from current and former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, and highest compensated employees. Complete Part II of Schedule L .............
				5
6	Loans and other receivables from other disqualified persons (as defined under section 4958(f)(1)), persons described in section 4958(c)(3)(B), and contributing employers and sponsoring organizations of section 501(c)(9) voluntary employees' beneficiary organizations (see instructions) Complete Part II of Schedule L ..............
				6
7	Notes and loans receivable, net ....			7
8	Inventories for sale or use ........			8
9	Prepaid expenses and deferred charges ......		10,484	9	17,726
10a	Land, buildings, and equipment: cost or other basis. Complete Part VI of Schedule D	10a
b	Less: accumulated depreciation	10b		10c
11	Investments—publicly traded securities .		17,450	11	20,113
12	Investments—other securities. See Part IV, line 11 .....			12
13	Investments—program-related. See Part IV, line 11 ..			13
14	Intangible assets ...............			14
15	Other assets. See Part IV, line 11 ...........		188	15	188
16	Total assets. Add lines 1 through 15 (must equal line 34)...		65,397	16	194,555

17	Accounts payable and accrued expenses .....	20,836	17	19,008
18	Grants payable ...		18
19	Deferred revenue .........		19
20	Tax-exempt bond liabilities .........		20
21	Escrow or custodial account liability. Complete Part IV of Schedule D		21
22	Loans and other payables to current and former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, highest compensated employees, and disqualified
	persons. Complete Part II of Schedule L..		22
23	Secured mortgages and notes payable to unrelated third parties ..		23
24	Unsecured notes and loans payable to unrelated third parties ..		24
25	Other liabilities (including federal income tax, payables to related third parties, and other liabilities not included on lines 17 - 24). Complete Part X of Schedule D		25
26	Total liabilities. Add lines 17 through 25..	20,836	26	19,008

	Organizations that follow SFAS 117 (ASC 958), check here and complete lines 27 through 29, and lines 33 and 34.
27	Unrestricted net assets	41,061	27	67,447
28	Temporarily restricted net assets ...........	3,500	28	108,100
29	Permanently restricted net assets		29
	Organizations that do not follow SFAS 117 (ASC 958), check here and complete lines 30 through 34.
30	Capital stock or trust principal, or current funds .....		30
31	Paid-in or capital surplus, or land, building or equipment fund ...		31
32	Retained earnings, endowment, accumulated income, or other funds		32
33	Total net assets or fund balances ...........	44,561	33	175,547
34	Total liabilities and net assets/fund balances ........	65,397	34	194,555