Josef Cowan founded our firm over 20 years ago.  The following are some questions and answers that discuss his unique qualities and why so many individuals and businesses trust our firm with their legal and business needs.

Q.    Why did you become a lawyer?

A.    I’m the youngest of 6 kids raised by a single mother.  We didn’t have much money, so I started working in the construction industry at a very young age.  In fact, I started a construction business when I was 17 years old, and that company is still in existence and has over 400 employees.  The construction industry involves a huge number of legal issues in a wide variety of different areas.  I always found the legal issues fascinating and believed that a solid understanding of the law and ability to resolve complex issues is a huge advantage in business.

Q.    What inspired you to found the Cowan Law Group?

A.    When I originally went to law school, I intended to use my legal training to help me with the construction business I started.  However, I found I have a real passion for helping individuals and small to medium-sized companies resolve their legal and business problems in ways that make good business sense.

Q.    How is the Cowan Law group different from other law firms?

A.    There are far too many firms that provide little to no value to their clients, and many that create more problems than they resolve.   In many instances, the attorneys are good, smart people, but they don’t have the background or business savvy necessary to provide truly strategic, cost-effective legal solutions to their clients.  This is a real problem because a good attorney who understands not just the legal issues, but also his client’s business challenges and objectives, is a tremendous resource and strategic advantage.  With that in mind, I created the Cowan Law Group, whose main mission is to provide legal services that are smart, creative, and practical.

Q.    So what makes you a good lawyer and advisor?

A.    I have benefitted greatly from a first class college and legal education.  What I believe is even more important, however, is my life experience.  Starting at a very young age, I have had to overcome many challenges both personally and in business.  As a lawyer and advisor, these experiences have been invaluable because, through them, I have developed an ability to look at problems and challenges and know how to navigate through them in ways that are smart and effective.  

But what is most telling is what my clients say.  Over the course of my legal career, I have successfully resolved over $700 million of legal disputes in many different areas, including general business, real estate, construction, employment, and trade secret litigation, and I have handled a large number of business transactions.  My clients often tell me that I provide counseling that is practical and mindful of business priorities, and that I handle it all well.

In a stiff blow to the government, Colombia's highest court for constitutional questions on Wednesday struck down an expansion of the military justice system that human rights activists had said would lead to greater impunity for war criminals.

In a 5-4 decision not subject to appeal, the Constitutional Court nullified a constitutional amendment and pursuant statute that would have placed under the jurisdiction of an expanded military justice system all but seven types of violations of international humanitarian law involving armed forces personnel.

Currently, all human rights cases are supposed to be tried in civil court.

Magistrate Jorge Ivan Palacio read a statement saying the court found "procedural defects" in the change's journey through Congress, accepting the arguments of opposition lawmakers and a top human rights lawyer. The decision was not released.

Defense Minister Juan Carlos Pinzon called the ruling "a blow to the morale of the military forces that without doubt will affect Colombians' security." He said the government would consider submitting a revised military court overhaul, but gave no details.

President Juan Manuel Santos was seen as having pushed the change through Congress to win the backing of military leaders for peace talks that began last year with the country's main rebel group in Cuba.

Santos repeatedly insisted the legal change would not lead to impunity in war crimes, but such arguments did not persuade members of the U.S. Congress, which withheld at least $10 million in military aid in objection to the measure.

The Supreme Court will take up a Florida case over how judges should determine if a death row inmate is mentally disabled, and thus ineligible for execution.

The justices said Monday they will review a Florida Supreme Court ruling that upheld the death sentence for a man who scored just above the state's cutoff for mental disability as measured by IQ tests.

Freddie Lee Hall was sentenced to death for killing Karol Hurst, a 21-year-old, pregnant woman who was abducted leaving a grocery store in 1978.

Florida law prohibits anyone with an IQ of 70 or higher from being classified as mentally disabled, regardless of other evidence to the contrary. Hall's scores on three IQ tests ranged from 71 to 80.

In 2002, the Supreme Court banned the execution of mentally disabled inmates. But the 6-3 decision in Atkins v. Virginia essentially left it to the states to determine how to measure mental disability.

Florida is one of nine death penalty states with a strict IQ limit, said Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente. The others are: Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington.

Pariente voted with the majority to uphold Hall's sentence, but noted there is no national consensus on how to determine mental disability.

Hall's case is legally complicated. In 1989, the Florida Supreme Court threw out Hall's original death penalty and ordered a new sentencing hearing. A judge then resentenced Hall to death, but declared he was mentally disabled. That took place before the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling and before Florida passed a law setting the IQ limit.

After the Supreme Court ruled a decade ago that race could be a factor in college admissions in a Michigan case, affirmative action opponents persuaded the state's voters to outlaw any consideration of race.

Now, the high court is weighing whether that change to Michigan's constitution is itself discriminatory.

It is a proposition that even the lawyer for civil rights groups in favor of affirmative action acknowledges a tough sell, at first glance.

"How can a provision that is designed to end discrimination in fact discriminate?" said Mark Rosenbaum of the American Civil Liberties Union. Yet that is the difficult argument Rosenbaum will make on Tuesday to a court that has grown more skeptical about taking race into account in education since its Michigan decision in 2003.

A victory for Rosenbaum's side would imperil similar voter-approved initiatives that banned affirmative action in education in California and Washington state. A few other states have adopted laws or issued executive orders to bar race-conscious admissions policies.

A state appeals court on Tuesday tossed out child abuse findings against a frustrated Northern California mother who spanked her 12-year-old daughter hard enough with a wooden spoon to cause bruising.

The 6th District Court of Appeal in San Jose reversed the child abuse determination made by the Santa Clara County Department of Social Services. Social workers waned to report Vernica Gonzalez to the state Department of Justice's child abuse database with a "substantiated" abuse determination. That determination was upheld by a trial court judge.

The appeals court said the spanking came close to abuse, but that social workers and the lower court judge failed to consider the family's entire circumstances.

Gonzalez and her husband testified that other forms of punishment such as groundings and taking away her phone had failed to persuade their 12-year-old daughter to do her schoolwork and avoid gang culture. The parents said that other family members had testified that spankings in the household were a rarity.

The appeals court said the mother's growing frustration with her daughter's behavior and her intention not to inflict harm in the April 2010 spanking weighed heavily in its ruling.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. says it will comply with a judge's order and shut down a natural gas pipeline after safety issues were raised.

The utility said Sunday it believes the pipeline is safe despite an engineer's email questioning the safety of the 83-year-old line's welds. PG&E said it could take until Tuesday to safely shut down the line and seamlessly switch its customers to another line.

A judge ordered the line shut down after San Carlos city officials discovered the email and declared a "state of emergency."

The email said PG&E's records incorrectly show the line containing a newer, more reliable weld than it actually has.

PG&E said state-of-the-art tests show the line is safe and that it was shutting the line only because of the court order.