Welcome to the Weintraub Tobin Resources Page

Browse below for news, legal insights, information on presentations and events, and other resources from the Weintraub Tobin legal team.


ICE’s Updated I-9 Audit Guidelines: What Employers Need to Know ICE’s Updated I-9 Audit Guidelines 

Federal immigration compliance has always required employers to maintain accurate Form I-9 records, but recent changes issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) significantly raise the stakes for even seemingly minor paperwork mistakes. In this article, we explore how ICE’s updated guidance reclassifies certain longstanding clerical errors as substantive violations, increasing the risk of immediate fines for employers during an I-9 audit. 

Employers in the U.S. are required to complete and retain Form I-9s to verify the identity and employment authorization of individuals hired to work. ICE has authority to audit an employer’s I-9 files at any time after issuing a Notice of Inspection, and employers typically have only three business days to produce requested records. Historically, I-9 violations have been divided into two categories: substantive violations and technical or procedural violations. 

For decades, this distinction provided employers some protection against immediate penalties for clerical errors. Technical or procedural violations generally involved administrative mistakes that could be corrected after notice from ICE. Employers were typically provided ten business days to cure those defects before penalties could be imposed. By contrast, substantive violations were treated as major compliance failures and could trigger immediate fines because they implicated the employer’s obligation to verify work authorization. 

ICE’s newly updated fact sheet substantially alters this framework by reclassifying several errors that were historically considered technical violations into substantive violations. This change significantly increases employer exposure because mistakes that may have previously been correctable can now lead directly to penalties. 

The revised guidance identifies several errors that are now considered substantive violations, including: 

  • Missing employee date of birth 
  • Missing date of hire 
  • Incorrect use of Spanish-language I-9 forms outside of Puerto Rico 
  • Missing preparer or translator information 
  • Failure to include the title of the employer or authorized representative 
  • Missing dates in Section 1 or Section 2 of the I-9 form 
  • Failure to enter rehire dates when applicable 

In addition, ICE has heightened scrutiny regarding the 2023 remote verification procedures. Employers utilizing remote I-9 verification now face substantive violations for procedural missteps that might otherwise appear minor. For example, failing to check the “alternative procedure” box to indicate that remote verification was used or failing to comply with E-Verify requirements may now expose employers to immediate liability. 

These revisions are particularly significant because substantive violations indicate a failure to satisfy federal work authorization requirements. In some instances, substantive violations may involve the complete absence of an I-9 form. However, under the updated guidance, paperwork errors once viewed as clerical are now being treated as compliance failures carrying greater enforcement risk. 

As a practical matter, employers should treat this guidance as a signal to proactively review their I-9 practices. Conducting an internal I-9 audit, evaluating electronic verification systems, reviewing remote onboarding procedures, and ensuring personnel responsible for onboarding receive proper I-9 training are prudent risk-management steps. Employers using remote verification procedures should pay especially close attention to procedural requirements to avoid inadvertent violations. 

Given the limited timeframe to respond to an ICE Notice of Inspection and the increased penalties associated with substantive violations, employers should act quickly if an audit notice is received. If you have questions about your company’s I-9 compliance practices or need assistance responding to an ICE audit, please contact the authors or your trusted Labor & Employment counsel at Weintraub Tobin. 

Before the Lawsuit: A California Professional Fiduciary’s Guide to Managing Litigation Risk

Professional fiduciaries are hired for their expertise, experience, and neutrality. Courts precisely appoint professional fiduciaries because of familial strife and complex administrations. Yet, time and time again, skilled professional fiduciaries walk straight into costly litigation; not because they were dishonest, not because they were negligent, but because they did not fully understand the probate hurdles they were navigating or the standard for which California courts hold them.

For licensed professional fiduciaries in California, this article serves as a guide to understanding litigation exposure, building the right professional relationships, and executing a proactive strategy before the first complaint letter ever arrives.

What DFPI’s Suspension of FIPVCC Implementation Means for Businesses

Originally published by the California Lawyers Association Business Law Section in the Corporations Committee e-Bulletin (2026 issue addressing developments under California’s Fair Investment Practices by Venture Capital Companies Law), this co-authored article originally titled “DFPI Suspends Implementation of the FIPVCC Rulemaking” by Christopher Chediak of Weintraub Tobin’s Corporate Group and Harry Berezin of Goodwin Procter LLP discusses the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation’s suspension of implementation and enforcement of the Fair Investment Practices by Venture Capital Companies Law pending further rulemaking and guidance.

On March 17, 2026, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced that it has suspended the implementation and enforcement of the Fair Investment Practices by Venture Capital Companies Law (FIPVCC), pending further rulemaking and guidance.  As a result, DFPI will not require covered entities to submit registrations or comply with the reporting obligations of the FIPVCC by the previously announced April 1, 2026 deadline.

Medicaid Provider Revalidation: Navigating Dr. Oz’s Sweeping Enrollment Audit

On April 23, 2026, Dr. Mehmet Oz, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), sent letters to all governors and State Medicaid Directors requesting that the states do the following:

  1.  Within 10 days, provide to CMS a timeline for swift revalidation of high-risk providers.  High risk providers include newly-enrolling home health agencies and durable medical equipment suppliers, as well as providers that have a history of certain fraud and abuse determinations or are in a category that has recently been the subject of a provider enrollment moratorium.  Dr. Oz also indicated that states must designate that any provider without a national provider identifier as “high risk”; and
  2. Within 30 days, submit a comprehensive two-year provider revalidation strategy for off-cycle provider revalidations with a focus on high-risk providers. 

Silver Targets: The Financial Exploitation of California’s Elders and How to Prevent Elder Abuse

Financial elder abuse is one of the least reported and misunderstood issues affecting families in California. Despite not always looking like theft, it often begins with small, seemingly innocuous shifts. Common patterns include: a senior who stops discussing money, a caregiver who starts attending every appointment, or an estate plan that is quietly revised without talking to the family. By the time financial elder abuse is recognizable, significant assets are likely gone. To protect the elderly and what they have worked so hard to build, we must understand financial elder abuse, the signs, remedies, and how to respond. Prompt response is imperative.

Tropes Aren’t Theft: What Freeman v. Wolff Teaches About Substantial Similarity in YA Fantasy Fiction

A recent decision from the Southern District of New York offers one of the most detailed modern analyses of substantial similarity in the increasingly popular young adult fantasy/“romantasy” space.

The case arose from a dispute between an unpublished author and the creator of a commercially successful paranormal romance series. The plaintiff alleged that her manuscripts—shared years earlier with a literary agent—were copied in the defendants’ novels. The court, however, granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that no reasonable jury could find substantial similarity of protectable expression.

The opinion is notable not just for its outcome, but for its methodical breakdown of what copyright law does not protect.

California Trust Litigation: How To Lose a Trust In Seven Ways

Trust litigation frequently leads to prolonged conflict and substantial expense, eroding the value of California trusts and estates over time. These losses diminish funds that would otherwise pass to beneficiaries. Trust disputes in California range widely in size, from hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of dollars. Regardless of the amount involved, many conflicts escalate into costly courtroom battles because trustees lack a clear understanding of their fiduciary duties or beneficiaries are unaware of their legal rights.

The One Document Every Founder Should Sign on Day One

When an early-stage company falls apart, it’s rarely because the founders disagreed about the product. More often, it’s because they never documented the relationship between themselves. 

I’ve seen promising companies stall, financings delayed, and long-time friendships end because the founders never clarified who owned what, how ownership would vest, or what would happen if someone left. These problems are entirely avoidable, but only if the right documents are put in place at the very beginning. 

Medicare Hits Pause on New DMEPOS Supplier Enrollments

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) recently announced new healthcare fraud measures that include the imposition of a six-month moratorium on provider enrollments of new durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (“DMEPOS”) suppliers. This means that new DMEPOS suppliers will not be able to enroll for the first time in the Medicare program until the moratorium terminates. The moratorium became effective February 27, 2026. 

Why Lady Gaga Prevailed in the “Mayhem” Trademark Dispute 

The intersection of trademark law and the First Amendment remains one of the most complex battlegrounds in intellectual property. A recent ruling in the dispute between the surf and lifestyle brand Lost International and Lady Gaga provides a critical look at how courts are navigating trademark conflicts involving expressive works in a post-Jack Daniel’s landscape. 

In December, a federal court denied Lost International’s motion for a preliminary injunction, allowing Lady Gaga to continue using the mark “Mayhem” for her 2025 album, worldwide concert tour, and tour merchandise.