TRIAL.COM's blawg of litigation management news, clippings, pointers to news reports and articles, and views of interest on issues and developments in the legal market.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
SNELL & WILMER OBTAINS DEFENSE VERDICT IN LAND ROVER ROLLOVER SUIT Snell & Wilmer attorneys Vaughn Crawford and Lee Mickus obtained a defense verdict for Land Rover after a seven-week trial in the District Court for Broward County, Florida. This product liability lawsuit followed Jeanne Luckey's crash of her 2004 Land Rover Discovery Series II vehicle, during which Ms. Luckey fractured her spine and was rendered quadriplegic.
Plaintiffs alleged that the 2004 Land Rover Discovery Series II vehicle did not provide sufficient protection to occupants in the event of a foreseeable rollover crash. In particular, Plaintiffs asserted that the roof structure could not resist the forces involved in a rollover, that a roof rack used on the 2004 Discovery Series II causes the roof panel to fold into the occupant compartment, and that the seat belts do not adequately restrain occupants within their survival space. During closing argument, Plaintiffs' lawyers asked the jury to award her and her family more than $120 million to compensate for their medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of support.
The Snell & Wilmer defense team presented evidence that the 2004 Land Rover Discovery Series II vehicle performed well in roof and seat belt tests used widely in the auto industry, and that Land Rover's internal engineers thoroughly assessed its crashworthiness prior to production. The team also established that Plaintiff's crash, which involved 4.5 rolls, was an extraordinarily violent event involving a huge amount of energy. It was the severity of the crash, and not any deficiency in the vehicle, that produced Plaintiff's injuries.
The six-person jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Land Rover on all claims after deliberating for only about two hours.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
SUSAN PRESTON OF GOODELL, DEVRIES, LEECH & DANN FEATURED ON THE COVER OF MARYLAND SUPER LAWYERS -- ONE OF THIRTEEN GDLD ATTORNEYS RECOGNIZED AS MARYLAND SUPERLAWYERS AND RISING STARS FOR 2010 Susan T. Preston of Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann was featured on the cover of the 2010 Maryland Super Lawyer magazine. In the cover story, Susan's peers compliment her as a top medical malpractice defense attorney who combines an extraordinary level of medical knowledge and preparedness with a cool temperament. This is the fourth consecutive year Ms. Preston ranks as one of Maryland’s Top 25 Women and Top 50 Super Lawyers. Click here to see the full article.
Additionally, 13 of the firm's attorneys are being recognized as Maryland Super Lawyers and Rising Stars for 2010. Two GDLD partners rank in the Top 10 Super Lawyers in Maryland: Donald L. DeVries, Jr. (for a fourth consecutive year) and Craig B. Merkle earn this 2010 honor. Along with Susan T. Preston, Linda S. Woolf is also hailed as one of the Top 25 Women Super Lawyers and Top 50 Super Lawyers in Maryland.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
BINGHAM'S NUCLEAR WEAPON BY STAN SINBERG SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUPER LAWYERS, FEB. 2010
How Marshall Grossman parlayed a $5 overcharge into a powerhouse career
Published in Southern California Super Lawyers 2010 - February 2010
There are few things Marshall Grossman, lawyer, loves more than settling.
"It's in everyone's best interest to settle cases consensually. You accomplish more of the client's objectives than you ever can in a verdict," says Grossman the lawyer, who has favorably settled civil cases involving Al Davis and the Los Angeles Raiders, Grupo Televisa S.A.B., Packard Bell and many others. His method? "I try to identify the critical points of leverage early on, and squeeze as hard as I can, to inflict the greatest amount of desire for the other side to resolve the case."
In one of his landmark victories from the '80s, Guess Jeans sued Jordache for fraud and "ground them to dust." Grossman says the dispute between the parties was so heated that settlement was impossible until five years of litigation in California, Delaware and Hong Kong had exhausted them. His clients in the "high-end shmatte business" skipped out on paying his agreed-upon bonus. (Grossman sued and eventually got paid.)
But when it comes to his personal life, Grossman the person might take issue with settling an upset stomach. He knows just what he wants, and he usually gets it.
That tendency might be genetic. His parents moved from Omaha, Neb., to California when Grossman was 4, when his father Lee was named director of the Hollywood USO during World War II. "We found an apartment in the Park La Brea complex, but they wouldn't rent to us because we were Jewish." Rather than settle for somewhere else, Lee called a higher-up in Washington, D.C., and complained that he was sent here to serve his country and they'd better do something. The Grossmans moved in. Still, this display of anti-Semitism had a profound impact on young Marshall. "It's one of the first things I remember," he says.
Partly on account of his parents remaining active with the Omaha Friendship Club, Grossman says he grew up with Midwestern values, which he describes as "A person's word being their bond, promises you can take to the bank, a lack of necessity of confirming everything in writing, and dealing with people on a neighborly basis unless they prove unworthy of it."
Grossman knew he was "meant" to be a lawyer. His uncle Irvin Stalmaster, after all, was the youngest person ever to serve on the Nebraska Supreme Court, when he received an interim appointment from the governor at 29, and Marshall grew up with a respect for the law's majesty. So after two and a half years at UCLA, he applied to USC, which had an accelerated "2/4" program - allowing students to enter a four-year law school program after only two years as an undergrad. Grossman admittedly wasn't qualified due to his middling grade-point average and his "poor experience" on the LSAT, so he visited USC's dean and convinced him to admit him.
Starting in his second year at UCLA, Grossman spent the summers selling encyclopedias for Collier's door-to-door. He was one of the top salesmen in the company, averaging $1,000 per week. He enjoyed it, he says, despite "warnings" on doors like "We shoot every third door-to-door salesman and the second one just left." Within one year he was supervising sales groups in Nevada, Southern California and Utah.
After completing his first year of law school, Collier's asked him to take a full-time position "running" Northern California. Grossman agreed to take off a year and do it. But after the summer, two weeks into the fall semester, the regional vice president asked him to take over Vancouver, Canada. Grossman declined. Instead, he called the chairman of the board to tell him he was returning to law school. The chairman asked Grossman to meet him in St. Louis, because "from now on, you're on my personal payroll."
Grossman was promptly put in charge of New York state, and rented apartments in Greenwich Village and Buffalo. While living in Greenwich Village, family friends gave Grossman the phone number of their niece in Los Angeles. When he returned West months later, he called. He married Marlene in 1962. And while Grossman-person may not settle, he settles in. "I've basically had one law firm, one wife and one house my entire adult life," he quips. But two offspring.
As his year commitment ended, Collier's asked him to stay on. Instead, Grossman went to Europe and Russia for six weeks, before returning to law school. Midway through his final year at USC, Collier's called again, and offered him a permanent position. In exchange for running the western one-third of their U.S. offices, they'd pay him $150,000. Against a commission. In 1961 dollars. To a 22-year-old. Committed to law, he turned it down.
Not that he had another job lined up. During his third year of law school, he looked for a suitable law firm position but back then the major law firms in Los Angeles weren't hiring Jews. And the predominantly Jewish law firms were too large for Grossman's taste. "They all had 15 to 20 lawyers, and I felt I'd be lost there."
Grossman's requirements were a wee bit specific: "I wanted a small firm with a quality practice with lawyers of great reputation with a litigation capacity where I'd be mentored and end up leading the firm." He found a perfect fit with a Beverly Hills firm with about half a dozen attorneys - except for one problem. "They told me they had no work [for an additional lawyer]." So Grossman employed the same strategy that had talked him into law school. "I told them, 'You have to plan for the future. You won't make a mistake if you hire me.'" Grossman was employed, but had nothing to do. Since part of his plan included being mentored, he tucked himself under the wing of the firm's star litigator, Daniel Weber, following him to depositions and trials. "I watched, I listened, I absorbed." Unfortunately Weber left after a year. Suddenly, Grossman found himself in charge of the litigation department, but there wasn't much litigation. He had to figure out how to create business.
Grossman found his client one day while looking in the mirror. A couple of years earlier, back in Chicago, he'd signed up for a lifetime membership in the Playboy Club for $25 (that's not a misprint). Included in that membership was entry into the forthcoming Los Angeles facility. Now he received a notice that members could no longer put charges on their Playboy card unless they paid an annual $5 account maintenance charge (not a misprint, either). After the letter he wrote asking Playboy to reconsider the change failed, Grossman figured that many of the Playboy Club's almost half-million members would be similarly outraged, so he went to his firm's other attorneys, and asked if they would object to his filing a class action.
At the time, California didn't generally recognize consumer class actions but attorneys gave him permission to pursue the matter on his own time. "As long as it doesn't interfere with the business we don't have," Grossman jokes. His suit charged Playboy with a violation of the California Corporate Securities Law, on the grounds that his $25 was being used to finance the building of the LA club. While the settlement might seem modest - all members of the Playboy Club received an $8 credit and the $5 charge was abolished, Grossman points out that it amounted to "100 percent recovery." More significantly, it was the first successful consumer class action in California to reach a verdict or settlement. Newsweek profiled Grossman and the case, citing Grossman as a "hustling 29-year-old lawyer," and class actions started flooding into the office.
One class action case that came in was one of the most notorious securities fraud cases of the '70s. Equity Funding Corporation of America was a financial services company with a life insurance subsidiary that resold its policies to reinsurers.
Amazingly, most of those resold policies were fraudulent, created out of whole cloth. When the scandal broke in April '73, more than 100 class action lawsuits were filed. Eventually they were all consolidated, and Grossman was named lead counsel.
The result was the largest civil securities fraud settlement in history: more than $60 million in cash in class actions, $100 million in stock in reorganization proceedings, and the liquidation of the insurance subsidiary. For other 36-year-old attorneys, this would be something to build a career around.
But Grossman decided he didn't want to file class actions anymore. Henceforth, he would represent defendants. That he has, representing Arthur Andersen, American International Group Inc., Apple, Blockbuster, and many more. During this time, Grossman learned the advantages of keeping his legal team small.
Because he considers taking depositions so critical, he tries to personally conduct every significant deposition on cases he's handling. That allows him to envision the trial from the very beginning - and helps him attain the leverage he seeks to gain a favorable settlement.
On his trip to the Soviet Union in 1961, Grossman befriended an engineer named Joseph, who warned him of the dire situation for Jews under the Soviet regime. Later, back in the U.S., the attorney read about an "engineer named Joseph" who was executed for consorting with foreigners. "I don't know if it's the same person, but that seared in my mind the need to do something." Grossman and Marlene returned to Russia in 1976, and met with Soviet refuseniks. During that period he also co-founded an organization, Concerned Citizens for Soviet Jewry. In 1984, he accompanied Jane Fonda to Russia, who'd taken up the cause of Ida Nudel, the most prominent woman protesting the plight of Soviet Jews, who was held in internal exile. Nudel was eventually released.
On a related front, Grossman is involved working pro bono to help Agudas Chasidei Chabad - an Orthodox Jewish organization - recover religious texts dating back to the 1700s that were seized during the Bolshevik Revolution and Second World War by the Russian Federation.
Grossman's had his share of celebrity cases as well, counseling J.K. Rowling, Steven Spielberg, Clint Eastwood, Mariah Carey and Larry King. Before the O.J. Simpson murder trial, a confidant of Simpson asked Grossman to handle expert witness work. He declined, but recommended a lawyer who should handle the entire case: Johnnie Cochran.
One early celebrity case involved Liberace and his long-time chauffeur/lover Scott Thorson. When the couple split, Thorson sued for half of Liberace's assets. "It was really the first gay palimony lawsuit," Grossman says. As Liberace hadn't officially "come out," Grossman didn't want to put him on the stand. Instead, during the deposition, he asked Thorson, "Is it your testimony that in exchange for sex, Liberace promised to give you half his assets?" Thorson responded, "Yes." Grossman then won a summary judgment for dismissal on the grounds that it was an illegal contract for prostitution.
A "ripped from today's Web gossip" client is Erin Andrews, the ESPN sidelines sportscaster whose surreptitiously taken nude video in her hotel room was, for several days, the most searched for item on the Internet. Grossman has been involved in tracking down the perpetrator and barring hundreds of Web sites from displaying the video. "This could happen to anyone. People think she was complicit. We're working to protect her reputation and career, as well as legally," Grossman says. Her stalker has since been arrested and faced trial in January 2010.
Environmentalism is another passion, and during the '80s he served as a commissioner of the California Coastal Commission. "I stood between James Watt and Ronald Reagan and off-shore oil drilling in the state because I tied them up in knots when they wanted to open up the entire California coast. I'm very proud of that."
By the early 1980s, Grossman was indeed leading his firm, Alschuler Grossman, as he had predicted and in 2007, just as unpredictable as ever, it combined with Bingham McCutchen. "I acquired 950 lawyers but we kept the Bingham name. They just don't know that." Then, getting serious, he says, "It was time. It helps ensure the success for our next generation of lawyers."
Part of ensuring that success is mentoring his junior members. "I tell them that it's most important to get their health and finances in order. Once you take care of yourself, you can focus your energies on helping your clients." Grossman says that despite the economy, Bingham is thriving. "We're poised for our best year ever." Since the merger, Grossman says he's working harder than ever but enjoying it more.
Three years ago he took up yoga, and now has a yoga mat in his office. A yoga trainer comes to his office or house two or three times weekly. He also reheated his swimming pool for the first time in a decade and has resumed swimming on a daily basis. "I'm having a great time and want to stick around another 50 years." That's something both Marshall Grossmans will settle for.
Published in Southern California Super Lawyers 2010 - February 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL'S WTO FOUNDATION DONATES OVER $20,000 TO HAITI EARTHQUAKE RELIEF Mike O'Donnell, the Chairman of law firm Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, has a mantra he employs in making decisions - to do the right thing and the smart thing. "Where those two intersect is where I want our firm to be," O'Donnell says. The same applies to the firm's charitable foundation.
Two days after the earthquake struck Haiti, the WTO Foundation had initiated a drive to raise funds for disaster relief efforts, with a promise to match the first $10,000 raised. When the drive ended eight days later, the Foundation had collected $10,685. With its match, the total was $20,685. That was the right thing to do.
One of the smart things the Foundation did was to open the fundraiser to all of its 130 firm personnel and anyone they wanted to ask for contributions. In other words, it didn't matter where the first $10,000 that the Foundation would match came from because it was all going towards the disaster relief efforts. Employees invited their family and friends to participate and double their donation in the process. Twenty percent of the contributions came from "outsiders" who were connected to firm personnel, but who were not immediate family.
WTO Foundation executive director Connie Proulx invited her house guest, a staff person with Up With People's Cast A 2010, to ask the 100 young people from 17 countries who had just arrived in Denver if they wanted to donate. Far from home, they were relieved to find a way to participate in the world response to the disaster. They emptied their pockets to raise $770 that was then matched dollar-for-dollar by the WTO Foundation.
The other smart thing the Foundation did was take the opportunity to strengthen the firm's relationship with a valued client by working with him and his Haitian wife to distribute the funds. The client will never forget the concern and caring WTO demonstrated for his Haitian family or the trust the WTO Foundation placed in him to use the money wisely. The money is being distributed among trusted nonprofit organizations that have been working in Haiti for years, including Doctors Without Borders, the World Food Program, the International Red Cross, and Yele Haiti Foundation.
Proulx says, "The WTO Foundation's response was about being part of the world response to help people affected by a natural disaster. It was about coming together as a firm and involving our family and friends in doing a good deed. It was about showing support to a firm client whose family had been affected by the earthquake." It was the right thing and the smart thing to do.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
WWHGD PREVAILS IN INSURANCE DISPUTE TRIAL Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC partner John Bonnie and associate Lindsay Gatling successfully defended Terex Corporation ("Terex") in a $1.4 million insurance dispute in an Indiana State Court arising out of the alleged malfunction of a bucket truck.
The case involved an aerial lift manufactured by Terex and purchased by end supply manufacturer DUECO, which attached the lift to a truck pursuant to design specifications of Richmond Power & Light in Richmond, Indiana. After a Richmond Power & Light employee fell out of the bucket truck and was rendered a quadriplegic, he sued DUECO and Terex for his injuries. DUECO settled the claims against it and filed a $1.4 million cross-claim against Terex. Terex moved for summary judgment on DUECO's cross-claim which was granted on DUECO's claims for contractual and common law indemnity. This judgment was affirmed by the Indiana Court of Appeals. A fact question remained, however, as to whether Terex had breached an alleged obligation to purchase insurance, as claimed by DUECO.
DUECO contended that Terex was contractually obligated to procure insurance with Vendor's coverage, and that Terex breached its contract with DUECO by not doing so. The contract required Terex to obtain "a Vendor's Endorsement" "if generally available." Terex was self insured for product liabilities up to a particular threshold. A general liability policy excluded product liability but contained a Vendor’s Endorsement. Terex's excess coverage covered product liability but contained no Vendor's Endorsement. Dueco contended that Terex breached its obligations by self-insuring a portion of its products liability risk and by not obtaining a Vendor's Endorsement on its excess policy.
DUECO also contended that a policy of insurance issued to a different entity acquired by Terex prior to the incident afforded coverage to DUECO by way of a Vendor's Endorsement attached to that policy. Terex showed that a Vendor's Endorsement was unavailable in each case; that the policy issued to the predecessor entity had been canceled as of the date of injury; and that even if a Vendor's Endorsement was "generally available," DUECO's modifications to the Terex product rendered the Vendor's coverage inapplicable. Terex also argued that DUECO's claim for $1.4 million was outside the coverage of any commercially issued policy of insurance because DUECO's $1.4 million claim was within the threshold of the Terex self-insurance program.
After arguments and the presentation of evidence and witness testimony in a bench trial, the Court entered judgment for Terex and against DUECO for each of the reasons stated by Terex.
Friday, December 11, 2009
A SEMINAR FOR WOMEN LAWYERS: "SHARING SUCCESS"
DRI's Women in the Courtroom Committee is producing a seminar March 25-26, 2010 at the Westin Kierland in Scottsdale, Arizona focusing on a number of cutting edge topics driving developments in the legal field.
Topics include working with difficult witnesses, business fundamentals for law firm partners, leadership skills for first chair level responsibility, juror bias, evidence errors to avoid, generational differences, interpersonal engagement skills, ethical dilemmas, using social media, mentoring, alternative billing, and negotiating skills.
The program addresses topics of interest and relevance to all trial lawyers, without regard to gender. However, a female perspective can be expected because the chair, vice-chair and program director are women, as is the vast majority of speakers. Of course, the seminar's title, "Sharing Success -- A Seminar for Women Lawyers" clearly states the program's targeted audience. Nevertheless, the program will be of value to all trial lawyers.
The seminar is intended to help women lawyers maximize their full potential in the courtroom, law firm and community. It will address unique challenges women face in the practice of law and offer an alternative model for success tailored to non-traditional ommunication styles and personalities. It is intended to hone trial and business development skills, and it will provided opportunities to participate in networking and social activities. Download the brochure.
Julie Walker, a trial lawyer and partner at the Network's Colorado member law firm, Wheeler Trigg & O'Donnell, is on the steering committee of DRI's Women in the Courtroom Committee which is producing this seminar.
SANDBERG PHOENIX & VON GONTARD ANNOUNCES TWO NEW PRACTICE GROUP LEADERSSandberg Phoenix & von Gontard P.C. announces two new practice group leaders for the firm’s Health Law and Products Liability Practice Groups. Jeffrey L. Dunn, Shareholder, has been named as the Health Law Practice Group Leader; and Andrew D. Ryan, Shareholder, has been named as the Products Liability Practice Group Leader.
Mr. Dunn joined Sandberg Phoenix in 2001 and is a Shareholder in the firm’s Health Law Practice Group. His primary focus is in the long term care industry, where he has represented numerous nursing home providers in six states and in federal court. In addition, he also defends corporate clients in other areas of litigation, including consumer product manufacturer fire cases, breach of contract actions and fraud claims.
Mr. Ryan joined Sandberg Phoenix in October 2004 and became a shareholder in 2007. His primary focus is in the products liability field, where he has represented both manufacturers and distributors of automobiles, industrial equipment, recreational vehicles, medical devices and pharmaceuticals, and other commercial and consumer products. He has also defended motor carriers in cases involving the condition of tractor-trailers and alleged violations of federal motor carrier regulations.
MIKE O'DONNELL NAMED COLORADO CHAIR OF AMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRIAL LAWYERS Michael O’Donnell, chairman of the Denver-based civil litigation firm Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, was named Chairman of the Colorado State Committee of the American College of Trial Lawyers for the second consecutive year, effective October 1, 2009. Widely considered to be the premier professional trial organization in North America since it was founded in 1950, the ACTL is composed of the finest U.S. and Canadian trial lawyers who are dedicated to maintaining and improving the standards of trial practice, the administration of justice, and the ethics of the profession. Membership is limited to one percent of lawyers in a state.
Mr. O'Donnell is listed in The Best Lawyers in America in five litigation categories, is included in Chambers USA, and is listed as one of the top ten lawyers in Colorado by Colorado Super Lawyers. His national litigation practice focuses on complex civil litigation involving product liability, professional liability, tort, class action, high-stakes insurance, and commercial litigation matters.
ANOTHER WIN FOR DEUTSCH, KERRIGAN & STILES Darrell Cherry defended a manufacturer of safety equipment in a silicosis product liability lawsuit with damage claims totaling six million dollars when an employee alleged that he used the manufacturer's product, which failed to protect him from inhaling silica dust, during his work for 30 years at a shipyard. The original lawsuit named numerous manufacturers of protective equipment. As time progressed, the plaintiff died, and his lawsuit was amended to add wrongful death claims by his wife and seven children. Mr. Cherry used pre-trial motion practice. The first motion was that of abandonment. This motion was denied by the trial court and again on appeal; however, the Louisiana Supreme Court accepted writs and remanded the issue back to the Third Circuit for en banc reconsideration (after the trial the en banc court ruled in the client’s favor on abandonment of the survival action). In the meantime, two months before trial, Mr. Cherry brought an Exception of Prescription against the survival action of the plaintiff, because the plaintiff failed to amend his lawsuit within one year of finding out he had also contracted silicosis in addition to asbestosis. A month before trial, the District Judge granted the exception of prescription, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's survival action (his own pain and suffering from contracting the occupational disease). The only action that remained for trial was that of wrongful death brought by the plaintiff's family. Mr. Cherry, assisted by Mr. Courtenay, participated in a ten-day trial in Jennings, Louisiana, to determine (1) whether the plaintiff contracted silicosis because of the manufacturer’s product and (2) whether silicosis caused the plaintiff's death. After presenting both liability, product I.D. and complex medical evidence and hearing testimony from four experts, the jury found 12-0 that the plaintiff did not die of silicosis. The plaintiff's counsel appealed the granting of the exception of prescription in order to revive the plaintiff's original claim; however, the Third Circuit in November ruled on the abandonment issue and granted the dismissal, rendering appeal on the exception of prescription (statute of limitations) moot.
JUDGE ORDERS PLAINTIFFS TO PAY ATTORNEYS FEES IN WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL VICTORY FOR PEABODY COFFEE FRANCHISE Denver District Court Judge Anne Mansfield ordered all plaintiffs to pay over two million dollars in attorneys' fees and costs to Peaberry Coffee Franchise, Inc. The expenses stem from the successful defense by Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell partner Hugh Gottschalk of a complex lawsuit brought by Peaberry's franchisees. Ten franchisees alleged a variety of fraud-in-the inducement and breach-of-contract claims against Peaberry, seeking nearly $30 million in actual and punitive damages. The case involved over 50 depositions, several rounds of briefing, and two hearings. It culminated in a five-week trial that spanned several months and included over 35 witnesses. The Court concluded that the requested attorneys' fees were reasonable and appropriate for the work performed, and that the rates charged and the hours invested in the case by Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, although substantial, were appropriate given the complexity of the litigation and the length of the trial.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL NAMED #2 BEST PLACE TO WORK IN DENVER Based on an annual survey of employees in Denver companies, the Denver Business Journal named the national civil litigation firm of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell the number two Best Place to Work in Denver in the large company category. WTO is the highest-rated law firm in all categories (small, medium, and large).
Firm chairman Mike O'Donnell explains the firm's recognition this way. "Our number one priority is taking excellent care of our clients. Making sure the firm's employees are happy is the way to achieve that."
Managing partner Hugh Gottschalk says, "Starting at the top with firm management, everyone in the firm works hard to sustain one of the firm's core values: 'to maintain a firm culture based on the principles of collegiality, tolerance, and respect.'"
The firm's employees cited the friendly and supportive atmosphere, the feelings of being valued and appreciated, and the generous benefits among the reasons for their job satisfaction.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSONS WINS TRADEMARK LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF HOLLYWOOD MOVIE PRODUCERS Rin Tin Tin, the famous German Shepherd puppy brought from the battlefields of France by a United States soldier during World War I, is back in the news. He became a Hollywood sensation after the Great War, starring in over 26 movies in the 1920s, and was credited with saving the flailing Warner Brothers Studio.
Hollywood producers recently sought to bring back the Rin Tin Tin charm in the form of a children's movie, Finding Rin Tin Tin, released last year.
A Texas German Shepherd dog breeder immediately sued for trademark infringement, claiming to own all rights to the name and trademark Rin Tin Tin, and seeking all profits, along with the destruction of all movie discs. The Houston Texas federal court recently ruled in favor of the producers, holding that their use of the name Rin Tin Tin in the body and title of the movie was a "fair use" and protected under the First Amendment. Trademarks are for the purpose of indicating the "source" of a product. Because the defendants' use of the mark "Rin Tin Tin" in the movie Finding Rin Tin Tin, did not suggest that plaintiffs were the source of the movie, and the use of the name merely describes the subject of the movie, the court reasoned that such use was "fair" and a protected literary work. The court dismissed the entire case against Beirne, Maynard & Parsons' clients.
GOODELL DEVRIES WINS SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISPROVES PLAINTIFF'S AGENCY THEORY Craig B. Merkle and Marianne DePaulo Plant obtained summary judgment for their client in a medical malpractice case alleging failure to diagnose a cervical spine fracture. The patient allegedly suffered a high spinal cord injury as a consequence of an ED physician's alleged failure to recognize and treat the c-spine fracture. The ED physician was not an employee of the hospital, but Plaintiffs sought to hold the hospital responsible for her care based on a theory of apparent agency. Deposition testimony taken in the case, along with other factual information gathered in the discovery phase, was used to disprove the requisite elements of a claim of implied agency. Over Plaintiffs' opposition, summary judgment was entered in favor of GDLD's client.
CORR CRONIN WINS BIG FOR MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPORATION Corr Cronin recently obtained complete dismissal of trade secret, unfair competition and tortious interference claims brought by Danaher Corporation against Corr Cronin client Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation. Danaher sought millions of dollars in damages, alleging that METCO and several of its employees misappropriated trade secret and confidential information from Fluke, a Danaher subsidiary. The case was fiercely litigated for eighteen months, and included a successful interlocutory appeal to the Washington State Court of Appeals. The case was set for an October 2009 trial, but shortly before the trial date, a King County Superior Court judge granted summary judgment to METCO and its employees on all claims. The judge also required Danaher/Fluke to pay attorney fees to a METCO employee (and Corr Cronin client).
SNELL & WILMER OBTAINS DEFENSE VERDICT FOR FORD AND MAZDA On October 15, 2009, Snell & Wilmer attorneys Vaughn Crawford, Dan Rodman and Jay Schuttert obtained a defense verdict in favor of Ford Motor Company and Mazda Motor Corporation in Washoe County District Court, in Reno, Nevada. This products liability lawsuit alleged a seatback defect in a 1995 Ford Probe, which was built as a joint venture between Ford and Mazda. The driver of the Ford Probe, Kevin Sorci, was rendered a paraplegic after his car was rear-ended, went off the road, hit a boulder and overturned.
Plaintiff claimed the Ford Probe had a defect in its driver's seat that caused the seat to collapse when the Probe was struck from the rear by another vehicle. Plaintiff claimed that the seat collapse caused the Plaintiff to ramp up his seatback and be out-of-position during the subsequent frontal collision with the boulder, causing his spinal cord injury. Plaintiff also asserted a negligence claim against the driver who rear-ended him.
The trial court precluded evidence that the driver of the other vehicle was intoxicated at the time of the crash, and excluded evidence that the Ford Probe, including its seat, complied with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
The Snell & Wilmer defense team presented evidence that the 1995 Ford Probe was well designed and tested, that the seatback did not collapse during the accident as Plaintiff claimed, that the seat yielded rearward an appropriate amount as intended during the crash to absorb the energy of the rear-end collision, and that Plaintiff would have suffered the very same injury during the second collision with the boulder regardless of the position of the Probe's seatback.
After deliberating for approximately four hours following a three week trial, the 8-person jury returned a verdict in favor of Ford Motor Company and Mazda Motor Corporation, finding that the Ford Probe was not defective. The jury also returned a verdict against the other driver, awarding the Plaintiff approximately $8.9 million in damages.
NETWORK'S LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN'S BLOCKBUSTER RULING Alabama Supreme Court Overturns Three Verdicts Against Drug Companies in State Drug-Pricing Fraud Cases The Alabama Supreme Court reversed $274 million in judgments entered in favor of the state against three pharmaceutical companies - AstraZeneca PLC, Novartis AG, and GlaxoSmithKline PLC - and directed that judgment be entered in the pharmaceutical companies' favor. The state had alleged that the drug companies overcharged the State for prescription drugs for Medicaid recipients.
FRANK W. RYAN TO LEAD NIXON PEABODY'S LITIGATION DEPARTMENT
International law firm Nixon Peabody LLP has named Frank W. Ryan as the Chair of the firm's Litigation Department which includes more than 300 attorneys. Mr. Ryan succeeds the department's previous leader, Samuel Goldblatt, who will continue to focus on his robust practice as a trial lawyer defending domestic and foreign manufacturers in a broad range of cases.
"Under Sam's extraordinary leadership, we have expanded the department's geographic footprint and at the same time complemented our existing talent, abilities and experience," said Frank Ryan, Chair of the firm's Litigation Department. "With this new opportunity, I will not only continue to focus on my practice, but I will work across the firm building teams to work closely with our clients to solve their most difficult legal challenges."
Mr. Ryan is a trial lawyer covering a wide range of industries including technology, media, sports and entertainment. His practice includes patent, trademark, trade dress, copyright, First Amendment, privacy, and trade secrets. He is outside intellectual property counsel to ESPN and represents the company in a wide variety of matters relating to ESPN's worldwide intellectual property portfolio. In the intellectual property and media fields, he has also represented American Broadcasting Company, TomTom, Cache, and the Walt Disney Company.
"Frank is creative, innovative, and focused on achieving the best result for our clients," said Richard F. Langan, Jr., CEO and Managing Partner of Nixon Peabody. "Frank began his career at Nixon Peabody more than 15 years ago and, in that time, I've seen him lead by example and grow his practice into what it is today through his strong sense of teamwork and ability to understand our client's goal on every case, every time."
Mr. Ryan is a graduate of Syracuse University, College of Law, magna cum laude. He also received his bachelor's degree from Syracuse University. Mr. Ryan is a member of the state bar of New York and New Jersey, numerous federal district courts, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Monday, October 05, 2009
BLAKES OBTAINS DEFENSE VERDICT FOR FORD MOTOR COMPANY
In January 2009, Blakes took a defense verdict for Ford Motor Company and Ford Motor Company of Canada in a serious personal injury claim brought by a police officer.
The officer alleged that the brakes of his Ford police cruiser failed while he was responding to a 911 emergency call, and that the failure of the brakes caused an accident that resulted in his sustaining permanent injuries rendering him incapable of serving as a police officer.
The plaintiffs sought damages at trial in excess of $1 million. Following a six-day jury trial, the jury found that the brakes of the police cruiser had not failed, and the claims against Ford were dismissed in their entirety.
BLAKES CANADA WINS 8-WEEK PROPERTY DAMAGE TRIAL FOR TYCO
Gord McKee of Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP, Toronto, along with Brad Cran and Amanda Heydon, successfully defended the SimplexGrinnell division of Tyco International of Canada Ltd. in an eight week trial stemming from a factory fire that burned for several days.
The fire consumed property valued at millions of dollars, deposited soot on nearby farms and caused the evacuation of two thousand people from their homes.
The case involved some 20 claims and cross claims, including a class action on behalf of evacuated residents, seeking close to $100 million in total from multiple defendants.
A mid-trial judicial mediation resulted in the settlement of many of the claims, including the class action, but trial proceeded against a number of defendants on liability issues in connection with a remaining subrogated property damage claim.
Following the conclusion of the trial, the Court dismissed all of the claims, including a claim against SimplexGrinnell alleging that it had failed to advise the property owner, prior to the fire, to have the adequacy of the building's sprinkler system assessed for a new use (plastic manufacturing, rather than metal stamping).
The Court accepted the evidence of SimplexGrinnell's inspector and of the fire control and prevention expert retained by Simplex Grinnell, finding that SimplexGrinnell did warn the factory owner that the sprinkler system should be assessed, that the absence of a written warning was of no consequence and that the inadequacy of the sprinkler system for the new use was well known to the owner.
Blakes' lawyers were instructed by David Nicholas, Senior Litigation Counsel at Tyco International in Boca Raton, Florida.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
BLAKES OPENING TWO OFFICES IN PERSIAN GULF
Blake, Cassels & Graydon, the Network's Canada member law firm with more than 500 employees in eight offices, will become the first Canadian firm to establish a permanent presence in the Persian Gulf when it opens an office in Bahrain on October 4th and an additional office in Saudi Arabia later this fall. Saud Al-Ammari, who is a native Saudi with an American law degree, will join Blakes as managing partner for both offices.
In July, Al-Ammari retired after 27 years with Aramco. From 1995-2003, Al-Ammari served in the Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources in Riyadh, where he served first as legal counsel for a year and later as the Ministry's general counsel.
McGinley noted that after concluding the Ministry assignment Al-Ammari returned to Dhahran, but he didn't stay for long. "In 2006, his unique talents were again called upon by the Government," and Al-Ammari was loaned to the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in London, where he managed and resolved sovereign cases in the English courts.
When Saud Al-Ammari visited Calgary during last year's Stampede, he was considering a career change. He was looking for a Western-based law firm that shared his vision -- to build a leading law firm in the Middle East focused on Islamic banking, infrastructure and mergers and acquisitions.
Mr. Al-Ammari is no stranger to legal deals. He had spent more than 10 years with the world's largest oil producer, Saudi Aramco, which picked him as the first employee it would sponsor to get a legal education in the West. He studied at the South Texas College of Law in Houston in the 1980s and later Harvard, where he received an LLM.
During his career, he also worked directly for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in a number of ministries, including petroleum and mineral resources. He also helped negotiate the Kingdom's entry into the World Trade Organization.
He said Canadian companies, whether it's in telecommunications or oil and gas, have long had a presence in his country. "I've known Canadians for a long time. I like them," he says.
A client of Canadian law firm Blake, Cassels & Graydon suggested the firm meet with Mr. Al-Ammari while he was in Calgary. A 15-minute get-to-know-you meeting turned into a two-hour summit, where Mr. Al-Ammari and a number of Blakes lawyers, including energy lawyer Dan Fournier and firm chairman Brock Gibson, talked about their vision of practising law and building a legal business.
The meeting adjourned with the parties agreeing to meet again the day after Stampede ended. Mr. Al-Ammari showed up in his western duds, which the Blakes lawyers had doffed in favour of suits, and won them over with a traditional, "Howdy partners."
Today, he can say that with meaning. Mr. Al-Ammari, who is also called to the bars in Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania, has joined Blakes as managing partner, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region, after "retiring" earlier this month from Saudi Aramco, where he was general attorney at the company.
His job, along with Mr. Fournier, chair of the Gulf region practice, will be to leverage his extensive connections and build Blake's presence in the Middle East.
STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF ERIN ANDREWS
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 3 / PRNewswire/ -- With respect to the arrest Friday, Oct. 2 by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Erin Andrews has authorized her attorneys, Marshall B. Grossman and Daniel Alberstone of Bingham McCutchen LLP, to issue the following statement:
"Today's action by the FBI is a welcome step in bringing this investigation to a successful close. We made it clear in our original statement issued on July 17, that we were determined to press criminal charges against those responsible for the invasion of Erin's privacy when alone in her hotel room.
Erin and her attorneys have been working closely with the United States Attorney, the FBI in Los Angeles and the private investigation firm of Kroll, Inc. since mid-July to investigate and reveal the full facts surrounding this matter. It is now clear that she was the victim of stalking and invasion of privacy at more than one location. She was not a random victim. She was targeted and violated.
Upon learning of today's events, Andrews said: "I am deeply grateful to Assistant United States Attorney Wes Hsu and Special Agents for their dedicated service; and to ESPN for its support during this difficult time. I hope that today's action will help the countless others who have been similarly victimized. For my part, I will make every effort to strengthen the laws on a State and Federal level to better protect victims of criminal stalking. I am also grateful to those who have expressed their concerns and good wishes for my family and me."
According to attorney Marshall Grossman, "Erin deserves significant credit for the progress made in solving this case. She has worked side by side with law enforcement to reconstruct the events and provide leads which have led directly to today's action. She is committed to seeing this through and do all she can to create a deterrent to others who would even consider engaging in this type of vile conduct in the future."
SOURCE: Bingham McCutchen Eric Miller +1-213-680-6583 +1-213-680-6583 eric.miller@bingham.com
Nixon Peabody, the Network's New York and Massachusetts member firm that recently coined (and trademarked) the phrase "legally green" is proving that it is just that.
Robert W. Burgdorf, an attorney with Nixon Peabody in Rochester, New York, is representing Upstate NY Power Corp., a wind farm developer working on the Galloo Island Wind Farm project in upstate New York.
Burgdorf is rushing approval of the project in part because wind power developers can qualify for U.S. Treasury contribution of 30 percent of development costs upfront if some of the turbines are constructed by the end of 2010.
He said the federal rebates take the place of the Production Tax Credit program which hasn't been viable because large corporations haven't needed tax credits in the current economy, as many aren't making large amounts of money.
Upstate NY Power will seek mortgage and sales tax abatements also for associated transmission facilities. The the developer will keep ownership of the transmission line and sell electrical capacity to other power producers.
"This will help resolve some of the problems we have up here with the grid," Mr. Burgdorf said. "This will open up other possibilities for other electric project needs."
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
WEINBERG WHEELER WINS SJ FOR HERTZ ON INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR RENTAL CAR ACCIDENT
Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC partner Patrick Moore and associate Steve Rapp successfully defended The Hertz Corporation ("Hertz") in an insurance dispute arising out of an accident involving a Hertz car driven by a Hertz customer driving while under the influence.
The Hertz customer became involved in a high speed police chase and collided with plaintiff's car killing plaintiff's wife. The customer tested positive for methamphetamines.
Plaintiff obtained a consent judgment against the customer for nearly $6,000,000. After collecting $200,000 from the customer's personal insurance carrier, the Plaintiff agreed to not collect against the customer personally and sought to collect $5,500,000 from Hertz via a garnishment action. Plaintiff argued Hertz's self-insurance plan rendered Hertz the excess insurer for customer. After both parties filed motions for summary judgment, the Court agreed that Hertz was responsible for any excess insurance. However, Hertz argued that any excess insurance provided by Hertz to the customer was excluded due to the terms of the rental contract which excluded all coverage in the event the customer engaged in certain prohibited conduct. The Court agreed with Hertz and granted Hertz's motion for summary judgment.
"This was a novel and difficult case in that there had been no other cases in state court just like it," said Patrick Moore. "The Court relied on some state cases that suggested the appropriate direction and a federal case which was on point."
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
FORD PREVAILS IN AIRBAG FATALITY CASE
Snell & Wilmer attorney Patrick Fowler, along with Louisiana co-counsel, recently obtained a unanimous defense verdict in favor of Ford Motor Company in a Louisiana product liability lawsuit arising from a fatal crash involving a 1995 Ford passenger vehicle. The driver placed her six-year-old child in the front seat of the car without buckling the child's seat belt. When the driver hit the brakes just before the intersection crash, the unbelted child was thrown forward against the passenger airbag when it deployed, tragically resulting in the child's death.
The Plaintiffs claimed that the car was unreasonably dangerous with regard to the force of the deploying airbag. They alleged that Ford should have installed into the '95 vehicle a more advanced, multi-stage passenger airbag system, like the one first introduced by Ford in the 2000 model year.
The Snell & Wilmer defense team presented evidence that the passenger airbag system in the vehicle represented the state of the art when it was developed in the early 1990s, that the advanced airbag system first introduced in 2000 was not technologically feasible when 1995 model year cars were being developed, that the '95 vehicle with a less powerful airbag may not have complied with the existing federal safety standards, and that even an advanced passenger airbag system carries a risk of serious injury to an unrestrained occupant who is on or near the airbag when it deploys. The defense team proved that a properly seated and belted child riding in the front seat of the '95 car would have walked away from the crash without serious injury.
The federal court jury took less than two hours to return a unanimous defense verdict in favor of Ford Motor Company.
HOOD LAW FIRM WINS APPEAL FOR TEXACO
Bobby Hood, along with Jamie Hood of the Hood Law Firm, recently won an appeal for Texaco in a case closely followed by franchisors throughout the United States and the business community in South Carolina. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict in favor of a passenger catastrophically injured and rendered a quadriplegic in a single car accident and held that Texaco, Inc. was entitled to a directed verdict on the issue of actual agency. The jury awarded the Plaintiff $30 million which the trial court reduced to $27 million based upon the jury’s assessment of 10% comparative fault by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff alleged that the accident was a result of the driver becoming intoxicated from alcohol illegally sold to him at a Texaco branded service station. Throughout the pretrial, trial, post-trial and appellate stages of the case, Texaco maintained that it was not vicariously liable for the conduct of the independently owned and operated store. The Plaintiff asserted that the branding requirements, the enrollment in a mystery shopper program and the brandishing of the Texaco emblem and customer service telephone number evidenced a degree of control beyond that of an ordinary franchisor/franchisee relationship. In a unanimous decision, the South Carolina Supreme Court concluded that there was no evidence to support a conclusion that Texaco had the right or power to control the store in the performance of its retail alcoholic beverage sales or in the manner in which that work was done and held that Texaco was entitled to a directed verdict.
In April 2009, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a report on mortality related to mesothelioma, a fatal cancer primarily associated with exposure to asbestos. The report indicated the number of malignant mesothelioma deaths is continuing to increase each year despite the ban since 1982 on most uses of asbestos. Given the long latency period for asbestos-related disease, the CDC estimates the number of mesothelioma deaths will continue to rise for a short time before beginning a slow decline.
John Fitzpatrick, a partner with the civil litigation defense firm of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell (WTO), sees a corollary rise in the number of liability lawsuits being filed by plaintiffs' attorneys on behalf of those who have developed malignant mesothelioma. As Fitzpatrick explains, these are complex cases, and not only because of the science and disease maturation time involved.
"Many asbestos cases have settled before trial, most in the three to seven million dollar range - at least according to the Web sites of plaintiff firms fiercely competing for business. Indeed, on voir dire most jurors acknowledge that they have seen the barrage of plaintiff commercials seeking new mesothelioma clients. As a result, many, if not most, manufacturers of insulation and related products have gone bankrupt over the years. This has led plaintiffs' attorneys to go after any and all remaining players associated with the asbestos-containing products to which plaintiffs were exposed. Plaintiffs' attorneys are claiming that third parties, such as equipment manufacturers who used asbestos gaskets or packing in their equipment, and often had their equipment insulated with pipe covering or block insulation manufactured and sold by others, should have foreseen and forewarned about the risks of asbestos exposure."
As plaintiffs' attorneys increase their efforts to develop new liability claims, Fitzpatrick encourages defendants, and especially equipment manufacturers, to challenge the claims at trial rather than settle. Fitzpatrick has taken more than 40 asbestos cases to trial in some of the toughest jurisdictions in the United States. In just the past four months, WTO trial teams led by Fitzpatrick and his partner Erik Nadolink obtained defense jury verdicts for their clients in two separate asbestos litigation matters.
In one case, the WTO litigation defense team argued that its client, General Electric, was not liable and did not have a duty to warn of the risk of exposure to asbestos-containing insulation that was made by another company and used to insulate six power plant land turbines manufactured by GE. Fitzpatrick argued that Commonwealth Edison, the owner of the facility, along with the various unions such as the Asbestos Workers Union and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers were well aware of the potential hazards - so much so that no warning was required by GE. Further, even if a warning had been given, it would not have changed any work condition at the plant.
The jury issued a verdict in favor of GE on September 4, 2009 after a two-week trial. The plaintiff requested $16MM in damages. The jury found there was no duty for GE to warn about any asbestos hazards. Over 25 lawyers from multiple law firms were in the gallery watching Fitzpatrick deliver the closing argument in this case, the first asbestos case to go to trial in Cook County in the last six years and the first asbestos trial for GE in the last three years.
In the second case, Pelletier, et al. v. Alfa Laval Inc., et al., a jury deliberated for less than 20 minutes before deciding that WTO’s client, Leslie Controls, was not liable for the plaintiff’s mesothelioma. After the other original defendants reached pre-trial settlements with the plaintiff, Leslie Controls was the sole remaining defendant at trial. The claims were made on behalf of Gerard Pelletier who was allegedly exposed to asbestos-containing gaskets and packing incorporated in the Leslie valves and asbestos-containing insulation manufactured by another company and applied by the Navy shipyard. The claims were related to Pelletier’s period of service on a U.S. Navy destroyer from 1957 to 1961.
During trial, WTO lawyers argued three main points. One, there was no reason for a valve manufacturer to warn about the hazards of asbestos gaskets or packing contained in their valves based on the medical and scientific literature at the time which concluded there was no danger of exposure to these materials. Secondly, the Navy was aware of asbestos hazards from insulation, had concluded there was no danger to asbestos gaskets and packing, and, consequently, made no changes to standard operating procedures, even as late as the mid 1990s. Thirdly, the plaintiff was never exposed to the asbestos in the valves Leslie Controls supplied to the U.S. Navy during World War II because the asbestos-filled gaskets in the valves were clad in copper.
The plaintiff had requested $16MM in damages with 30% liability assigned to Leslie Controls. On June 26, 2009, after a two-week trial, the jury issued a verdict in favor of Leslie Controls finding that Leslie had no duty to warn about the dangers of asbestos and that the plaintiff was not exposed to asbestos-containing gaskets or packing materials in a Leslie valve.
TERESA BARTOSIAK ELECTED AS A MISSOURI STATE CHAIR BY THE COUNCIL ON LITIGATION MANAGEMENT
CLM (Council on Litigation Management) has announced that Teresa D. Bartosiak of Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard will be representing Missouri as a state chair. This leadership role within the Council is designed to assist in the development and growth of the Council, foster communications within Missouri, and monitor CLM Strategic Affiliations for state and local organizations/associations.
Ms. Bartosiak is a shareholder at Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard. She is the Practice Group Leader for the firm's Health Law Practice Group and is Chair of the Medical Device Section of the Products Liability Practice Group. Teresa's practice is concentrated in the areas of medical malpractice, nursing home litigation, products liability and personal injury litigation.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
FORMAN PERRY PREVAILS IN MISSISSIPPI ASBESTOS EXPOSURE TRIAL
PRNewswire Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy LLP won a "take-nothing" defense verdict in a Mississippi asbestos exposure lawsuit on behalf of Houston-based Union Carbide Corporation, ConocoPhillips Company and Montello, Inc.
Plaintiff sued the companies in 2006 claiming health problems resulting from alleged exposure to asbestos while working in oilfields located throughout the southeastern United States between 1965 and 1986.
Following a two-week trial before Judge Billy Joe Landrum in Jones County Circuit Court, jurors returned a take-nothing verdict for Union Carbide and the other companies, rejecting each of the plaintiff's claims of negligence, strict liability, design defect, inadequate warning, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The verdict was delivered Sept. 9.
"We are very pleased about the jurors' careful consideration of the facts in this case," said Marcy B. Croft, lead counsel from the Forman Perry defense team representing Union Carbide, who worked in conjunction with National Trial Counsel from Baker Botts, LLP, and from Hartline, Dacus, Barger, Dryer & Kern, LLP. "We maintained from day one that our client acted responsibly, and this verdict is proof."
Monday, September 14, 2009
PERFECT SCORE FOR NIXON PEABODY ON CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX Fourth Consecutive Year Law Firm Scores Top Marks for Diverse Workplace Policies
Nixon Peabody is one of 88 law firms and 305 businesses nationwide to receive a 100 percent rating this year.
The HRC is the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization. The HRC's Corporate Equality Index measures companies on their comprehensive workplace polices for LGBT employees.
"We are honored and pleased that for the fourth consecutive year the HRC has recognized our firm's efforts to promote and enhance diversity," said Francoise Hanonik, Nixon Peabody's chief human resources officer. "As part of our commitment to attracting, developing, and retaining the right talent, we recognize that it is more important than ever to develop and promote innovative human resources policies and initiatives for our diverse population."
In order to receive a perfect rating from the HRC, employers must provide:
- Diversity training
- A nondiscrimination policy that includes sexual orientation
- Inclusive health insurance, bereavement, and family leave policies to all firm employees with same-sex partners
- A firmwide diversity committee including an LGBT affinity group
Nixon Peabody was one of the first law firms in the country to extend health and welfare coverage to domestic partners. The firm offers a variety of benefits and programs that support the diversity of lawyers and employees including: health care, dental and life insurance coverage for domestic partners, a gender-neutral, four-week paid parenting leave, and affinity groups that provide a forum and supportive environment for diverse attorneys and staff.
"Diversity is a core value of the firm," added Kendal H. Tyre, a partner and chair of the firm’s Diversity Action Committee. "Our strong reputation for diversity is a contributing factor for many of our clients when they consider engaging our firm. We are committed to creating a workplace environment where we celebrate our wide range of backgrounds and cultures."
Nixon Peabody's Diversity Action Committee includes attorneys and senior managers who are responsible for maintaining a sense of diversity and inclusiveness that is fostered throughout the firm from workplace policies and benefits programs to the recruitment, retention, and promotion of attorneys and personnel, and community giving programs.
The 2010 HRC Corporate Equality Index report and ratings can be found here. Three other Network firms also scored high on the index: Bingham McCutchen, Dykema and Wildman Harrold.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
BEST LAWYERS LISTS MANY NETWORK FIRMS AND ATTORNEYS
For a quarter century, Best Lawyers has compiled lists of outstanding attorneys by conducting peer-review surveys in which thousands of leading lawyers confidentially evaluate their professional peers. In the U.S. and Canada, Best Lawyers publishes an annual referral guide, The Best Lawyers in America, which, as to the U.S., includes 39,766 attorneys in 80 specialties, covering all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The 16th edition of The Best Lawyers in America (2010) is based on more than 2.8 million detailed evaluations of lawyers by other lawyers. Member firms mentioned are:
Akerman Senterfitt
Ranked #1 in Florida in Banking Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Florida in Bankruptcy and Creditor-Debtor Rights Law with 9 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Florida in Health Care Law with 5 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Florida in Insurance Law with 6 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Florida in Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law with 5 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Florida in Private Funds Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Florida in Venture Capital Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Miami, FL in Insurance Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Miami, FL in Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law with 4 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Miami, FL in Mergers & Acquisitions Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Miami, FL in Venture Capital Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Orlando, FL in Banking Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Orlando, FL in Bankruptcy and Creditor-Debtor Rights Law with 4 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Tallahassee, FL in Insurance Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Tampa, FL in Trusts and Estates with 3 attorneys.
Alternative Dispute Resolution Edward B. Davis (Miami, FL) Donald G. Gavin (Vienna, VA)
Antitrust Law Ronald B. Ravikoff (Miami, FL)
Appellate Law Kimberly A. Ashby (Orlando, FL) Katherine Eastmoore Giddings (Tallahassee, FL) Joseph W. Hatchett (Tallahassee, FL) Wayne Lee Thomas (Tampa, FL)
Banking Law Patrick T. Christiansen (Orlando, FL) Joseph E. Foster (Orlando, FL) Virginia B. Townes (Orlando, FL)
Bankruptcy and Creditor-Debtor Rights Law Jules S. Cohen (Orlando, FL) Denise D. Dell-Powell (Orlando, FL) James E. Foster (Orlando, FL) Joseph E. Foster (Orlando, FL) Joanne Gelfand (Fort Lauderdale, FL) Michael I. Goldberg (Fort Lauderdale, FL) Joan M. Levit (Fort Lauderdale, FL) John B. Macdonald (Jacksonville, FL) David E. Otero (Jacksonville, FL) Stanley M. Salus (Vienna, VA)
Bet-the-Company Litigation Jonathan Goodman (Miami, FL) View Articles Lawrence P. Rochefort (West Palm Beach, FL) Virginia B. Townes (Orlando, FL)
Commercial Litigation Michael B. Chavies (Miami, FL) Dana Clayton (Miami, FL) Joseph E. Foster (Orlando, FL) Jonathan Goodman (Miami, FL) View Articles Alice G. Hector (Miami, FL) Leslie E. Joughin III (Tampa, FL) John B. Macdonald (Jacksonville, FL) Margaret D. Mathews (Tampa, FL) James M. McCann (West Palm Beach, FL) Michael P. McMahon (Orlando, FL) Ronald B. Ravikoff (Miami, FL) Lawrence P. Rochefort (West Palm Beach, FL) L. Joseph Shaheen, Jr. (Tampa, FL) Wayne Lee Thomas (Tampa, FL) Virginia B. Townes (Orlando, FL)
Construction Law Hugh N. Anderson (Madison, WI) Kimberly A. Ashby (Orlando, FL) David P. Dapper (Los Angeles, CA) Donald G. Gavin (Vienna, VA) Robert J. Smith (Madison, WI)
Corporate Governance and Compliance Law Jonathan L. Awner (Miami, FL) View Articles Teddy D. Klinghoffer (Miami, FL) View Articles Stephen K. Roddenberry (Miami, FL)
Corporate Law William C. Arnhols (Miami, FL) Jonathan L. Awner (Miami, FL) View Articles David M. Doney (Tampa, FL) Stephen K. Roddenberry (Miami, FL) Carl D. Roston (Miami, FL) Philip B. Schwartz (Miami, FL)
Criminal Defense: White-Collar Ralph J. Caccia (Washington, DC) Daniel S. Gelber (Miami, FL) Jonathan Goodman (Miami, FL) View Articles Steven E. M. Hartz (Miami, FL)
Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law Bradley S. Gould (Miami, FL) Anthony J. James Spalla (Tallahassee, FL)
Employee Benefits Law Richard T. Hurt (Orlando, FL) Peter E. Salomon (Miami, FL)
Energy Law Gregory R. McClintock (Los Angeles, CA)
Environmental Law Silvia M. Alderman (Tallahassee, FL) Cecelia Bonifay (Orlando, FL) Robert E. Fabricant (Los Angeles, CA) Gregory R. McClintock (Los Angeles, CA)
Family Law Richard C. Milstein (Miami, FL)
Franchise Law Warren L. Lewis (Vienna, VA)
Government Relations Law James Larry Williams (Tallahassee, FL)
Health Care Law Kirk S. Davis (Tampa, FL) Julie Gallagher (Tallahassee, FL) Daniel Jacobson (Miami, FL) Stephen G. Prom (Jacksonville, FL) Joseph W. Rugg (Tampa, FL)
Immigration Law Barry H. Gleen (New York, NY)
Insurance Law Marcy Levine Aldrich (Miami, FL) Philip Bruce Culpepper (Tallahassee, FL) Bernard Jacobson (Miami, FL) Allan J. Katz (Tallahassee, FL) Edward L. Kutter (Tallahassee, FL) Nina S. Whiston (Miami, FL)
Intellectual Property Law J. Rodman Steele, Jr. (Vienna, VA)
International Arbitration Edward B. Davis (Miami, FL) Burton A. Landy (Miami, FL)
International Trade and Finance Law Stephen K. Roddenberry (Miami, FL)
Labor and Employment Law James S. Bramnick (Miami, FL) Karen Meyer Buesing (Tampa, FL) View Articles Susan N. Eisenberg (Miami, FL) Scott T. Silverman (Tampa, FL)
Land Use & Zoning Law Michael D. Bailkin (New York, NY) Cecelia Bonifay (Orlando, FL) Thomas T. Ross (Orlando, FL)
Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law Jonathan L. Awner (Miami, FL) View Articles Andrew Gold (Fort Lauderdale, FL) Teddy D. Klinghoffer (Miami, FL) View Articles Stephen K. Roddenberry (Miami, FL) Carl D. Roston (Miami, FL)
Maritime Law Anthony J. Cuva (Tampa, FL)
Medical Malpractice Law Kirk S. Davis (Tampa, FL)
Mergers & Acquisitions Law Jonathan L. Awner (Miami, FL) View Articles Teddy D. Klinghoffer (Miami, FL) View Articles Stephen K. Roddenberry (Miami, FL)
Municipal Law Peter L. Dame (Jacksonville, FL)
Natural Resources Law Gregory R. McClintock (Los Angeles, CA)
Non-Profit/Charities Law Henry H. Raattama, Jr. (Miami, FL) Frank J. Rief (Tampa, FL)
Private Funds Law Teddy D. Klinghoffer (Miami, FL) View Articles Jason S. Oletsky (Fort Lauderdale, FL) Stephen K. Roddenberry (Miami, FL)
Public Finance Law Peter L. Dame (Jacksonville, FL)
Real Estate Law Drake M. Batchelder (Fort Lauderdale, FL) Michael A. Berke (Miami, FL) Cecelia Bonifay (Orlando, FL) Aileen S. Davis (Tampa, FL) James H. McNeil, Jr. (Orlando, FL) Eric D. Rapkin (Fort Lauderdale, FL) Thomas T. Ross (Orlando, FL) Janice L. Russell (Miami, FL) Andrew M. Smulian (Miami, FL) Jeffrey P. Wieland (Orlando, FL) Julie A. S. Williamson (Miami, FL)
Securities Law Leonard H. Bloom (Miami, FL) J. Thomas Cookson (Miami, FL) David M. Doney (Tampa, FL) Stephen K. Roddenberry (Miami, FL)
Tax Law Lazaro Frank Cordero (Miami, FL) Donald K. Duffy (Miami, FL) Russell B. Hale (Orlando, FL) Richard T. Hurt (Orlando, FL) William Kalish (Tampa, FL) Peter O. Larsen (Jacksonville, FL) Henry H. Raattama, Jr. (Miami, FL) August M. Van Eepoel (Tampa, FL)
Transportation Law Anthony J. James Spalla (Tallahassee, FL) Robert A. Zinn (Miami, FL)
Trusts and Estates Stephen D. Dunegan (Orlando, FL) William Kalish (Tampa, FL) Stewart Andrew Marshall III (Orlando, FL) Richard C. Milstein (Miami, FL) Frank J. Rief (Tampa, FL) August M. Van Eepoel (Tampa, FL)
Venture Capital Law Martin G. Burkett (Miami, FL) Teddy D. Klinghoffer (Miami, FL) View Articles Carl D. Roston (Miami, FL)
Bass Berry
Ranked #1 in United States in Banking Law with 16 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Tennessee in Administrative Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Tennessee in Banking Law with 16 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Tennessee in Corporate Governance and Compliance Law with 13 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Tennessee in Environmental Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Tennessee in Health Care Law with 10 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Tennessee in Information Technology Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Tennessee in Insurance Law with 4 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Tennessee in Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law with 5 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Tennessee in Mergers & Acquisitions Law with 13 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Tennessee in Mutual Funds Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Tennessee in Natural Resources Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Tennessee in Project Finance Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Tennessee in Public Finance Law with 6 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Tennessee in Securities Law with 12 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Nashville, TN with 58 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Nashville, TN in Banking Law with 11 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Nashville, TN in Corporate Governance and Compliance Law with 12 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Nashville, TN in Corporate Law with 15 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Nashville, TN in Environmental Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Nashville, TN in Health Care Law with 9 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Nashville, TN in Information Technology Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Nashville, TN in Insurance Law with 4 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Nashville, TN in Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law with 5 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Nashville, TN in Mergers & Acquisitions Law with 12 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Nashville, TN in Mutual Funds Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Nashville, TN in Natural Resources Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Nashville, TN in Personal Injury Litigation with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Nashville, TN in Public Finance Law with 5 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Nashville, TN in Securities Law with 10 attorneys.
Administrative Law J. Andrew Goddard (Nashville, TN) W. Brantley Phillips, Jr. (Nashville, TN) Richard R. Spore III (Memphis, TN)
Alternative Dispute Resolution L. Wearen Hughes (Nashville, TN) Christopher G. Lazarini (Memphis, TN) Shepherd D. Tate (Memphis, TN)
Antitrust Law R. Dale Grimes (Nashville, TN)
Banking Law Felix R. Dowsley III (Nashville, TN) John A. Good (Memphis, TN) Julie N. Jones (Nashville, TN) Howard H. Lamar III (Nashville, TN) Anthony J. McFarland (Nashville, TN) Michael S. Peek (Nashville, TN) Peter R. Pettit (Memphis, TN) John S. Seehorn (Nashville, TN) Cynthia N. Sellers (Nashville, TN) John C. Speer (Memphis, TN) Richard R. Spore III (Memphis, TN) John A. Stemmler (Memphis, TN) James S. Tate, Jr. (Nashville, TN) T. Stephen C. Taylor (Nashville, TN) Bob F. Thompson (Nashville, TN) F. Mitchell Walker, Jr. (Nashville, TN)
Bankruptcy and Creditor-Debtor Rights Law Gene L. Humphreys (Nashville, TN) Paul G. Jennings (Nashville, TN) Stephen W. Ragland (Memphis, TN)
Bet-the-Company Litigation H. Lee Barfield II (Nashville, TN) Shepherd D. Tate (Memphis, TN) Overton Thompson III (Nashville, TN)
Commercial Litigation H. Lee Barfield II (Nashville, TN) Michael L. Dagley (Nashville, TN) Wallace W. Dietz (Nashville, TN) Samuel Lanier Felker (Nashville, TN) John S. Golwen (Memphis, TN) R. Dale Grimes (Nashville, TN) David A. King (Nashville, TN) J. Richard Lodge, Jr. (Nashville, TN) Anthony J. McFarland (Nashville, TN) Shepherd D. Tate (Memphis, TN) Overton Thompson III (Nashville, TN)
Construction Law L. Wearen Hughes (Nashville, TN)
Corporate Governance and Compliance Law James H. Cheek III (Nashville, TN) Michael L. Dagley (Nashville, TN) J. Page Davidson (Nashville, TN) John A. Good (Memphis, TN) J. James Jenkins, Jr. (Nashville, TN) Howard H. Lamar III (Nashville, TN) James Allen Overby II (Nashville, TN) J. Bradbury Reed (Nashville, TN) Todd J. Rolapp (Nashville, TN) Samuel E. Stumpf, Jr. (Nashville, TN) Bob F. Thompson (Nashville, TN) F. Mitchell Walker, Jr. (Nashville, TN) Leigh Walton (Nashville, TN)
Corporate Law James H. Cheek III (Nashville, TN) J. Page Davidson (Nashville, TN) E. Bruce Foster, Jr. (Knoxville, TN) John A. Good (Memphis, TN) Bernard Riney Green (Nashville, TN) J. James Jenkins, Jr. (Nashville, TN) Howard H. Lamar III (Nashville, TN) Robins H. Ledyard (Nashville, TN) James Allen Overby II (Nashville, TN) Theodore G. Pappas (Nashville, TN) J. Bradbury Reed (Nashville, TN) Cynthia Y. Reisz (Nashville, TN) Todd J. Rolapp (Nashville, TN) Samuel E. Stumpf, Jr. (Nashville, TN) Bob F. Thompson (Nashville, TN) F. Mitchell Walker, Jr. (Nashville, TN) Leigh Walton (Nashville, TN)
Derivatives Law Wallace W. Dietz (Nashville, TN)
Employee Benefits Law Fritz Richter III (Nashville, TN) David A. Thornton (Memphis, TN)
Energy Law J. Andrew Goddard (Nashville, TN) Theodore G. Pappas (Nashville, TN)
Environmental Law J. Andrew Goddard (Nashville, TN) G. Scott Thomas (Nashville, TN) Jessalyn H. Zeigler (Nashville, TN)
Equipment Finance Law Julie N. Jones (Nashville, TN)
Ethics and Professional Responsibility Law Coburn Dewees Berry IV (Nashville, TN)
Franchise Law Samuel E. Stumpf, Jr. (Nashville, TN)
Government Relations Law J. Richard Lodge, Jr. (Nashville, TN) W. Brantley Phillips, Jr. (Nashville, TN)
Health Care Law H. Lee Barfield II (Nashville, TN) Angela Humphreys (Nashville, TN) David A. King (Nashville, TN) Howard H. Lamar III (Nashville, TN) Claire F. Miley (Nashville, TN) T. Scott Noonan (Nashville, TN) Cynthia Y. Reisz (Nashville, TN) Scott B. Shanker (Memphis, TN) Leigh Walton (Nashville, TN) Elizabeth S. Warren (Nashville, TN)
Information Technology Law Robert L. Brewer (Nashville, TN) Todd J. Rolapp (Nashville, TN) G. Scott Thomas (Nashville, TN)
Insurance Law H. Lee Barfield II (Nashville, TN) Robins H. Ledyard (Nashville, TN) J. Richard Lodge, Jr. (Nashville, TN) T. Stephen C. Taylor (Nashville, TN)
Intellectual Property Law Wallace W. Dietz (Nashville, TN) Paige Waldrop Mills (Nashville, TN)
Labor and Employment Law Karen L.C. Ellis (Nashville, TN) Tim K. Garrett (Nashville, TN) William N. Ozier (Nashville, TN)
Land Use & Zoning Law Coburn Dewees Berry IV (Nashville, TN)
Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law James H. Cheek III (Nashville, TN) J. Page Davidson (Nashville, TN) Howard H. Lamar III (Nashville, TN) Todd J. Rolapp (Nashville, TN) Samuel E. Stumpf, Jr. (Nashville, TN)
Mass Tort Litigation Samuel Lanier Felker (Nashville, TN) Anthony J. McFarland (Nashville, TN)
Medical Malpractice Law H. Lee Barfield II (Nashville, TN) David A. King (Nashville, TN)
Mergers & Acquisitions Law James H. Cheek III (Nashville, TN) J. Page Davidson (Nashville, TN) John A. Good (Memphis, TN) Bernard Riney Green (Nashville, TN) J. James Jenkins, Jr. (Nashville, TN) Howard H. Lamar III (Nashville, TN) James Allen Overby II (Nashville, TN) J. Bradbury Reed (Nashville, TN) Todd J. Rolapp (Nashville, TN) Samuel E. Stumpf, Jr. (Nashville, TN) Bob F. Thompson (Nashville, TN) F. Mitchell Walker, Jr. (Nashville, TN) Leigh Walton (Nashville, TN)
Mutual Funds Law James H. Cheek III (Nashville, TN) Bob F. Thompson (Nashville, TN) F. Mitchell Walker, Jr. (Nashville, TN)
Natural Resources Law J. Andrew Goddard (Nashville, TN) G. Scott Thomas (Nashville, TN) Jessalyn H. Zeigler (Nashville, TN)
Personal Injury Litigation H. Lee Barfield II (Nashville, TN) Samuel Lanier Felker (Nashville, TN) David A. King (Nashville, TN)
Private Funds Law Todd J. Rolapp (Nashville, TN) Samuel E. Stumpf, Jr. (Nashville, TN)
Product Liability Litigation Samuel Lanier Felker (Nashville, TN)
Project Finance Law G. Mark Mamantov (Knoxville, TN) Michael S. Peek (Nashville, TN) John A. Stemmler (Memphis, TN)
Public Finance Law G. Mark Mamantov (Knoxville, TN) George H. Masterson (Nashville, TN) Karen S. Neal (Nashville, TN) Jeffrey A. Oldham (Nashville, TN) Keith B. Simmons (Nashville, TN) Charles K. Wray (Nashville, TN)
Real Estate Law Coburn Dewees Berry IV (Nashville, TN) Felix R. Dowsley III (Nashville, TN) G. Mark Mamantov (Knoxville, TN) Michael S. Peek (Nashville, TN) Cynthia N. Sellers (Nashville, TN) D. Mark Sheets (Nashville, TN) Richard R. Spore III (Memphis, TN) John A. Stemmler (Memphis, TN) James S. Tate, Jr. (Nashville, TN)
Securities Law James H. Cheek III (Nashville, TN) J. Page Davidson (Nashville, TN) John A. Good (Memphis, TN) J. James Jenkins, Jr. (Nashville, TN) Howard H. Lamar III (Nashville, TN) James Allen Overby II (Nashville, TN) Todd J. Rolapp (Nashville, TN) Samuel E. Stumpf, Jr. (Nashville, TN) Shepherd D. Tate (Memphis, TN) Bob F. Thompson (Nashville, TN) F. Mitchell Walker, Jr. (Nashville, TN) Leigh Walton (Nashville, TN)
Tax Law James C. Gooch (Nashville, TN) Bryan W. Metcalf (Nashville, TN) Michael D. Sontag (Nashville, TN)
Technology Law G. Scott Thomas (Nashville, TN)
Trusts and Estates James C. Gooch (Nashville, TN) Michael D. Sontag (Nashville, TN)
Venture Capital Law Howard H. Lamar III (Nashville, TN)
Water Law J. Andrew Goddard (Nashville, TN)
Bingham McCutchen
Ranked #1 in Japan in Insolvency and Reorganization with 5 attorneys. Ranked #1 in United States in Equipment Finance Law with 4 attorneys. Ranked #1 in United States in Structured Finance Law with 9 attorneys. Ranked #1 in California in Antitrust Law with 5 attorneys. Ranked #1 in California in Environmental Law with 5 attorneys. Ranked #1 in California in Structured Finance Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Connecticut in Banking Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Massachusetts in Antitrust Law with 4 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Boston, MA in Antitrust Law with 4 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Boston, MA in Venture Capital Law with 4 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Hartford, CT in Banking Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Hartford, CT in Real Estate Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in San Francisco, CA in Antitrust Law with 5 attorneys. Ranked #1 in San Francisco, CA in Banking Law with 5 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Santa Monica, CA in Bet-the-Company Litigation with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Santa Monica, CA in Commercial Litigation with 4 attorneys.
Alternative Dispute Resolution Joseph L. Kociubes (Boston, MA)
Antitrust Hiroshi Iyori (Tokyo)
Antitrust Law David M. Balabanian (San Francisco, CA) Alicia L. Downey (Boston, MA) Daniel L. Goldberg (Boston, MA) Frank M. Hinman (San Francisco, CA) Terry J. Houlihan (San Francisco, CA) Holly A. House (San Francisco, CA) Donn P. Pickett (San Francisco, CA) Daniel S. Savrin (Boston, MA) Thane D. Scott (Boston, MA)
Appellate Law Stephen L. Kostka (San Francisco, CA) John R. Reese (San Francisco, CA)
Banking Law Anthony R. Callobre (Los Angeles, CA) Peter H. Carson (San Francisco, CA) Neal J. Curtin (Boston, MA) Frederick F. Eisenbiegler (New York, NY) George A. Hisert (San Francisco, CA) Amy L. Kyle (Boston, MA) Pamela J. Martinson (San Francisco, CA) Jiro Murase (New York, NY) Daniel Papermaster (Hartford, CT) James M. Rockett (San Francisco, CA) Bruce C. Silvers (Hartford, CT) Edwin E. Smith (Boston, MA) R. Jeffrey Smith (Hartford, CT) Maureen A. Young (San Francisco, CA)
Bankruptcy and Creditor-Debtor Rights Law William Bates III (East Palo Alto, CA) Harold S. Horwich (Hartford, CT) Satoru Murase (New York, NY) Michael J. Reilly (New York, NY) Ronald J. Silverman (New York, NY) Edwin E. Smith (Boston, MA) P. Sabin Willett (Boston, MA)
Bet-the-Company Litigation David M. Balabanian (San Francisco, CA) Bruce A. Friedman (Santa Monica, CA) Daniel L. Goldberg (Boston, MA) Marshall B. Grossman (Santa Monica, CA) Joseph L. Kociubes (Boston, MA) Gwyn D. Quillen (Santa Monica, CA)
Biotechnology Law R. Danny Huntington (Washington, DC) Alan Kalin (East Palo Alto, CA) Julio Vega (Boston, MA)
Commercial Litigation David M. Balabanian (San Francisco, CA) Steven G. Brody (New York, NY) Bruce A. Friedman (Santa Monica, CA) Daniel L. Goldberg (Boston, MA) Marshall B. Grossman (Santa Monica, CA) Frank Kaplan (Santa Monica, CA) Joseph L. Kociubes (Boston, MA) Raymond Marshall (San Francisco, CA) Donn P. Pickett (San Francisco, CA) Gwyn D. Quillen (Santa Monica, CA) Stuart D. Rosen (Hartford, CT) Michael A. Sherman (Los Angeles, CA) Jeffrey Q. Smith (New York, NY) Stephen Zovickian (San Francisco, CA)
Communications Law Jean L. Kiddoo (Washington, DC) Andrew D. Lipman (Washington, DC) Andrew Ray (Washington, DC)
Construction Law Michael J. Plishner (San Francisco, CA) William G. Southard (Boston, MA) Stephen Zovickian (San Francisco, CA)
Corporate and M&A Satoru Murase (Tokyo)
Corporate Law Johan V. Brigham (Boston, MA) Bartley C. Deamer (East Palo Alto, CA) James W. Loss (Costa Mesa, CA) Satoru Murase (New York, NY) David K. Robbins (Los Angeles, CA) Edwin E. Smith (Boston, MA) John R. Utzschneider (Boston, MA)
Criminal Defense: White-Collar James Hamilton (Washington, DC) Ralph C. Martin II (Boston, MA) Mark E. Robinson (Boston, MA)
Derivatives Law Geoffrey F. Aronow (Washington, DC) Michael L. Spafford (Washington, DC)
Employee Benefits Law Natascha S. George (Boston, MA) Richard M. Harter (Boston, MA) Russell E. Isaia (Boston, MA) Barbara D. Klippert (New York, NY)
Energy & Natural Resources Stephen Peppiatt (London)
Energy Law William D. Kissinger (San Francisco, CA)
Entertainment Law Marshall B. Grossman (Santa Monica, CA)
Environmental Law Christopher P. Berka (East Palo Alto, CA) James J. Dragna (Los Angeles, CA) Charles H. Knauss (Washington, DC) Stephen L. Kostka (San Francisco, CA) Rick Rothman (Los Angeles, CA) Edward Strohbehn (San Francisco, CA)
Equipment Finance Law George A. Hisert (San Francisco, CA) Amy L. Kyle (Boston, MA) Edwin E. Smith (Boston, MA) R. Jeffrey Smith (Hartford, CT)
Financial Institution Regulatory Law Takayasu Koga (Tokyo)
Financial Services Peter Anthony Bibby (London) Helen Janet Marshall (London)
First Amendment Law Jonathan M. Albano (Boston, MA) Joseph L. Kociubes (Boston, MA)
Franchise Law William N. Berkowitz (Boston, MA) James C. McGrath (Boston, MA)
Government Relations Law Thurgood Marshall, Jr. (Washington, DC)
Health Care Law Ross E. Campbell (East Palo Alto, CA)
Insolvency & Restructuring Thomas Bannister (London) James Roome (London) Barry G. Russell (London) James Terry (London)
Insurance Law Bruce A. Friedman (Santa Monica, CA)
Intellectual Property Harumi Kojo (Tokyo)
Intellectual Property Law William F. Abrams (East Palo Alto, CA) Byde W. Clawson (East Palo Alto, CA) R. Danny Huntington (Washington, DC)
International Trade and Finance Law Jiro Murase (New York, NY) Satoru Murase (New York, NY)
Labor and Employment Hiroyuki Kanae (Tokyo) Atsushi Yamada (Tokyo)
Labor and Employment Law John F. Adkins (Boston, MA) Alan Berkowitz (San Francisco, CA) Deborah S. Freeman (Hartford, CT) Scott C. Moriearty (Boston, MA) Louis A. Rodriques (Boston, MA) James Severson (San Francisco, CA)
Land Use & Zoning Law Stephen L. Kostka (San Francisco, CA) Geoffrey L. Robinson (San Francisco, CA) Barbara Schussman (San Francisco, CA) Cecily Talbert Barclay (San Francisco, CA)
Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law Bartley C. Deamer (East Palo Alto, CA) James W. Loss (Costa Mesa, CA) Neil W. Townsend (New York, NY) Richard Welch (Los Angeles, CA) Robert M. Wolf (Boston, MA)
Media Law Jonathan M. Albano (Boston, MA)
Mergers & Acquisitions Law Johan V. Brigham (Boston, MA) Bartley C. Deamer (East Palo Alto, CA) David K. Robbins (Los Angeles, CA) John R. Utzschneider (Boston, MA)
Mutual Funds Law Roger P. Joseph (Boston, MA) Toby R. Serkin (Boston, MA)
Product Liability Litigation Peter C. Neger (New York, NY)
Project Finance Law Nancy M. Persechino (Washington, DC) Marc A. Reardon (Boston, MA) Mark C. Williams (Washington, DC)
Projects Stephen Peppiatt (London)
Real Estate Law Frank A. Appicelli (Hartford, CT) Carol K. Dillon (East Palo Alto, CA) Richard S. Fries (New York, NY) Kenneth Lore (Washington, DC) Edward S. Merrill (San Francisco, CA) Mark Oland (Hartford, CT) Barry P. Rosenthal (Washington, DC) Edward A. Saxe (Boston, MA) Martin Siroka (New York, NY) R. Jeffrey Smith (Hartford, CT) Richard A. Toelke (Boston, MA) Erica Weiss (Washington, DC)
Securities Law Kevin M. Barry (Boston, MA) Steven C. Browne (Boston, MA) W. Hardy Callcott (San Francisco, CA) Jason D. Frank (Boston, MA) Jordan D. Hershman (Boston, MA) Herbert F. Janick III (Portland, ME) Gerald F. Rath (Boston, MA) Neal Sullivan (Washington, DC) John R. Utzschneider (Boston, MA) Julio Vega (Boston, MA)
Structured Finance Law John C. Arnholz (Washington, DC) Reed D. Auerbach (New York, NY) Peter H. Carson (San Francisco, CA) Edward M. De Sear (New York, NY) Laurence B. Isaacson (New York, NY) Pamela J. Martinson (San Francisco, CA) Sandra Lee Montgomery (Los Angeles, CA) R. Jeffrey Smith (Hartford, CT) Robert C. Wipperman (New York, NY)
Tax Law Donald-Bruce Abrams (Boston, MA) John S. Brown (Boston, MA) M. Gordon Ehrlich (Boston, MA) F. Scott Farmer (Washington, DC) Jasper A. Howard (Washington, DC) John B. Magee (Washington, DC) William S. McKee (Washington, DC) William F. Nelson (Washington, DC) Matthew D. Schnall (Boston, MA) Lawrence I. Silverstein (Boston, MA)
Technology Law William F. Abrams (East Palo Alto, CA)
Trusts and Estates M. Gordon Ehrlich (Boston, MA) William D. Kirchick (Boston, MA) George P. Mair (Boston, MA) Thomas E. Peckham (Boston, MA) Barbara Freedman Wand (Boston, MA)
Venture Capital Law Kevin M. Barry (Boston, MA) Steven C. Browne (Boston, MA) John J. Concannon III (Boston, MA) Julio Vega (Boston, MA)
Water Law James J. Dragna (Los Angeles, CA)
Blakes
Ranked #1 in Canada in Banking Law with 14 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Canada in Corporate Governance with 9 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Canada in Defamation and Media Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Canada in Equipment Finance Law with 6 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Canada in Gaming Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Canada in Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Alberta in Corporate Law with 7 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Alberta in Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Alberta in Mergers & Acquisitions Law with 4 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Alberta in Securities Law with 6 attorneys. Ranked #1 in British Columbia in Corporate Law with 4 attorneys. Ranked #1 in British Columbia in Mergers & Acquisitions Law with 4 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Ontario in Corporate Governance with 5 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Ontario in Defamation and Media Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Ontario in Equipment Finance Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Quebec in Equipment Finance Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Calgary, AB in Corporate Law with 7 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Calgary, AB in Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Calgary, AB in Mergers & Acquisitions Law with 4 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Calgary, AB in Securities Law with 6 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Montreal, QC in Banking Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Montreal, QC in Equipment Finance Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Toronto, ON in Corporate Governance with 4 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Toronto, ON in Defamation and Media Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Toronto, ON in Equipment Finance Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Toronto, ON in Technology Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Vancouver, BC in Corporate Law with 4 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Vancouver, BC in Mergers & Acquisitions Law with 4 attorneys.
Aboriginal Law Ben A. Jetten (Toronto, ON) Joanne R. Lysyk (Vancouver, BC) Bill S. Maclagan (Vancouver, BC)
Administrative and Public Law Nancy Brooks (Ottawa, ON) Gordon Cameron (Ottawa, ON) Paul B. Schabas (Toronto, ON)
Advertising and Marketing Law Robert E. Kwinter (Toronto, ON) Elizabeth L. McNaughton (Toronto, ON)
Alternative Dispute Resolution Joel Richler (Toronto, ON)
Appellate Law Webster Macdonald QC (Calgary, AB)
Asset-Based Lending Michael R. Harquail (Toronto, ON) James Papadimitriou (Montréal, QC)
Banking Law Paul Belanger (Toronto, ON) James R. Christie (Toronto, ON) Martin Fingerhut (Toronto, ON) Kevin A. Fougere (Calgary, AB) Dan P. E. E. Fournier QC (Calgary, AB) Michael R. Harquail (Toronto, ON) C. Dawn Jetten (Toronto, ON) Marc-Antoine La Rochelle (Montréal, QC) Yvon Martineau (Montréal, QC) Ric C. McIvor (Toronto, ON) Norm A. Saibil (Montréal, QC) Anne M. Stewart QC (Vancouver, BC) John W. Teolis (Toronto, ON) David Zacks QC (Vancouver, BC)
Class Action Litigation Jeff W. Galway (Toronto, ON) Claude Marseille (Montréal, QC) David T. Neave (Vancouver, BC) Joel Richler (Toronto, ON) James Sullivan (Vancouver, BC) Robert J. Torralbo (Montréal, QC)
Communications Law David Kidd (Ottawa, ON) Andrée Wylie (Ottawa, ON)
Competition/Antitrust Law George Burke (Vancouver, BC) Brian A. Facey (Toronto, ON) Calvin S. Goldman QC (Toronto, ON) Robert E. Kwinter (Toronto, ON) Jack J. Quinn (Toronto, ON) Crystal Witterick (Toronto, ON)
Construction Law Joel Richler (Toronto, ON)
Corporate and Commercial Litigation Gordon Cameron (Ottawa, ON) Nigel M. Campbell (Toronto, ON) William C. Kaplan QC (Vancouver, BC) Webster Macdonald QC (Calgary, AB) Michael McCachen (Calgary, AB) Joel Richler (Toronto, ON) Paul B. Schabas (Toronto, ON) Robert J. Torralbo (Montréal, QC)
Corporate Governance Denis Boudreault (Montréal, QC) Eric R. Elvidge (Ottawa, ON) Pat C. Finnerty (Calgary, AB) Brock W. Gibson (Calgary, AB) Brock W. Gibson (Toronto, ON) Chris Hewat (Toronto, ON) David A. Jackson (Toronto, ON) Peter C. Kalbfleisch (Vancouver, BC) Jeffrey R. Lloyd (Toronto, ON) Anne M. Stewart QC (Vancouver, BC)
Corporate Law George Burke (Vancouver, BC) James R. Christie (Toronto, ON) Scott R. Cochlan (Calgary, AB) Rob Collins (Toronto, ON) Dallas L. Droppo QC (Calgary, AB) Pat C. Finnerty (Calgary, AB) Will Fung (Toronto, ON) Brock W. Gibson (Calgary, AB) Brock W. Gibson (Toronto, ON) Jeff L. Glass (Toronto, ON) Mungo Hardwicke-Brown (Calgary, AB) Chris Hewat (Toronto, ON) David A. Jackson (Toronto, ON) Peter C. Kalbfleisch (Vancouver, BC) Jeffrey R. Lloyd (Toronto, ON) Yvon Martineau (Montréal, QC) Jacquie S. Moore (Calgary, AB) Norm A. Saibil (Montréal, QC) Chad C. Schneider (Calgary, AB) William F. Sirett (Vancouver, BC) Anne M. Stewart QC (Vancouver, BC) Craig C. Thorburn (Toronto, ON)
Defamation and Media Law Bert S. Bruser (Toronto, ON) Paul B. Schabas (Toronto, ON) Tony S. Wong (Toronto, ON)
Director and Officer Liability Webster Macdonald QC (Calgary, AB) Michael McCachen (Calgary, AB) Joel Richler (Toronto, ON) Mary Jane Stitt (Toronto, ON)
Employee Benefits Law Randy V. Bauslaugh (Toronto, ON) Kathryn M. Bush (Toronto, ON) Jeremy J. Forgie (Toronto, ON) Jeff W. Galway (Toronto, ON) Caroline L. Helbronner (Toronto, ON) J. A. Prestage (Toronto, ON) John M. Solursh (Toronto, ON)
Energy Regulatory Law Gordon Cameron (Ottawa, ON) Alain Massicotte (Montréal, QC)
Environmental Law Paul R. Cassidy (Vancouver, BC) Robert M. Fishlock (Toronto, ON) Duff Harper (Calgary, AB) Jonathan W. Kahn (Toronto, ON)
Equipment Finance Law Yannick Beaudoin (Montréal, QC) Michael E. Burke (Toronto, ON) Martin Fingerhut (Toronto, ON) Marc-Antoine La Rochelle (Montréal, QC) James Papadimitriou (Montréal, QC) Paul K. Tamaki (Toronto, ON)
Gaming Law Jacquie S. Moore (Calgary, AB) John M. Tuzyk (Toronto, ON) Seumas M. Woods (Toronto, ON)
Information Technology Law Richard Corley (Toronto, ON) Sunny Handa (Montréal, QC)
Insolvency and Financial Restructuring Susan M. Grundy (Toronto, ON) Pamela L. J. Huff (Toronto, ON) William C. Kaplan QC (Vancouver, BC)
Insurance Law Mitch B. Cohen (Calgary, AB) Mary Jane Stitt (Toronto, ON)
Intellectual Property Law J. Alan Aucoin (Toronto, ON) Sheldon Burshtein (Toronto, ON) Christopher C. Hale (Toronto, ON) Anthony M. Prenol (Toronto, ON)
International Arbitration Webster Macdonald QC (Calgary, AB) Joel Richler (Toronto, ON) Cliff Sosnow (Ottawa, ON)
International Trade and Finance Law Greg Kanargelidis (Toronto, ON)
Labour and Employment Law Connie Reeve (Toronto, ON) Derek L. Rogers (Toronto, ON)
Legal Malpractice Law Joel Richler (Toronto, ON) Mary Jane Stitt (Toronto, ON)
Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law Pat C. Finnerty (Calgary, AB) Brock W. Gibson (Calgary, AB) Brock W. Gibson (Toronto, ON) Mungo Hardwicke-Brown (Calgary, AB)
Mergers & Acquisitions Law Pat C. Finnerty (Calgary, AB) Brock W. Gibson (Calgary, AB) Brock W. Gibson (Toronto, ON) Chris Hewat (Toronto, ON) David A. Jackson (Toronto, ON) Peter C. Kalbfleisch (Vancouver, BC) Jeffrey R. Lloyd (Toronto, ON) Ernest D. McNee (Toronto, ON) Jacquie S. Moore (Calgary, AB) Chad C. Schneider (Calgary, AB) William F. Sirett (Vancouver, BC) Anne M. Stewart QC (Vancouver, BC) Bob J. Wooder (Vancouver, BC)
Mutual Funds Law Michael W. Sharp (Toronto, ON)
Natural Resources Law Paul R. Cassidy (Vancouver, BC) Chris A. Christopher (Calgary, AB) Pat C. Finnerty (Calgary, AB) Brock W. Gibson (Calgary, AB) Brock W. Gibson (Toronto, ON) Peter C. Kalbfleisch (Vancouver, BC) Ben Rogers (Calgary, AB) Bob J. Wooder (Vancouver, BC)
Product Liability Law Gordon Mckee (Toronto, ON)
Project Finance Law Dan P. E. E. Fournier QC (Calgary, AB) Alain Massicotte (Montréal, QC) Norm A. Saibil (Montréal, QC) Anne M. Stewart QC (Vancouver, BC)
Public Finance Law Judy L. Wilson (Toronto, ON)
Public Procurement Gordon Cameron (Ottawa, ON)
Real Estate Law Garth Anderson (Calgary, AB) Tim W. Bermingham (Toronto, ON) Rob Collins (Toronto, ON) Richard L. Dawson (Calgary, AB) Joseph Grignano (Toronto, ON) Jim Hilton (Toronto, ON) Roger G. Howay (Vancouver, BC) Chris Huband (Toronto, ON) Gayle Hunter (Vancouver, BC) R.E.H. (Bob) Macdonald (Toronto, ON) Jeffrey Merrick (Vancouver, BC) Norm A. Saibil (Montréal, QC) Thomas von Hahn (Toronto, ON)
Securities Law Nigel M. Campbell (Toronto, ON) Scott R. Cochlan (Calgary, AB) Dallas L. Droppo QC (Calgary, AB) Eric R. Elvidge (Ottawa, ON) Pat C. Finnerty (Calgary, AB) Brock W. Gibson (Calgary, AB) Brock W. Gibson (Toronto, ON) Chris Hewat (Toronto, ON) Pamela Hughes (Toronto, ON) David A. Jackson (Toronto, ON) Peter C. Kalbfleisch (Vancouver, BC) Jeffrey R. Lloyd (Toronto, ON) Ross McKee (Toronto, ON) Jacquie S. Moore (Calgary, AB) Chad C. Schneider (Calgary, AB) William F. Sirett (Vancouver, BC)
Structured Finance Law Michael E. Burke (Toronto, ON) Martin Fingerhut (Toronto, ON) Kevin A. Fougere (Calgary, AB) Mark J. Selick (Toronto, ON)
Tax Law Allan J. Gelkopf (Toronto, ON) Greg Kanargelidis (Toronto, ON) Robert Kopstein (Vancouver, BC) Bill S. Maclagan (Vancouver, BC) Kathleen V. Penny (Toronto, ON) Ron Richler (Toronto, ON) Paul K. Tamaki (Toronto, ON) Chris Van Loan (Toronto, ON)
Technology Law Sheldon Burshtein (Toronto, ON) Richard Corley (Toronto, ON) Sunny Handa (Montréal, QC) Chris Hewat (Toronto, ON) Jocelyn M. Kelley (Vancouver, BC)
Corr Cronin
Bet-the-Company Litigation Kelly P. Corr (Seattle, WA)
Commercial Litigation Kevin C. Baumgardner (Seattle, WA) Kelly P. Corr (Seattle, WA) William F. Cronin (Seattle, WA) Joshua J. Preece (Seattle, WA) William R. Squires III (Seattle, WA)
Personal Injury Litigation Kelly P. Corr (Seattle, WA)
Deutsch Kerrigan
Ranked #1 in Louisiana in Professional Malpractice Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in New Orleans, LA in Professional Malpractice Law with 3 attorneys.
Appellate Law Joseph L. McReynolds (New Orleans, LA)
Commercial Litigation Robert E. Kerrigan, Jr. (New Orleans, LA) William E. Wright, Jr. (New Orleans, LA)
Construction Law Terrence L. Brennan (New Orleans, LA) Charles F. Seemann, Jr. (New Orleans, LA)
Environmental Law A. Wendel Stout III (New Orleans, LA)
Labor and Employment Law Ellis B. Murov (New Orleans, LA)
Maritime Law Francis J. Barry, Jr. (New Orleans, LA) Bertrand M. Cass, Jr. (New Orleans, LA) Charles E. Leche (New Orleans, LA)
Mass Tort Litigation A. Wendel Stout III (New Orleans, LA)
Personal Injury Litigation Frederick R. Bott (New Orleans, LA) Bertrand M. Cass, Jr. (New Orleans, LA) Robert E. Kerrigan, Jr. (New Orleans, LA) Charles E. Leche (New Orleans, LA) Nancy J. Marshall (New Orleans, LA) Charles F. Seemann, Jr. (New Orleans, LA)
Product Liability Litigation Nancy J. Marshall (New Orleans, LA)
Professional Malpractice Law Terrence L. Brennan (New Orleans, LA) Nancy J. Marshall (New Orleans, LA) William E. Wright, Jr. (New Orleans, LA)
Dykema
Ranked #1 in Michigan in Administrative Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Michigan in Alternative Dispute Resolution with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Michigan in Bet-the-Company Litigation with 6 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Michigan in Government Relations Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Michigan in Product Liability Litigation with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Michigan in Trusts and Estates with 6 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Bloomfield Hills, MI in Commercial Litigation with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Detroit, MI in Trusts and Estates with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Lansing, MI in Administrative Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Lansing, MI in Government Relations Law with 3 attorneys.
Administrative Law Albert Ernst (Lansing, MI) Gary P. Gordon (Lansing, MI) Richard D. McLellan (Lansing, MI)
Alternative Dispute Resolution Samuel C. Damren (Detroit, MI) James P. Feeney (Bloomfield Hills, MI) Peter M. Kellett (Detroit, MI)
Antitrust Law Howard B. Iwrey (Bloomfield Hills, MI) Andrew J. McGuinness (Ann Arbor, MI)
Banking Law Lori McAllister (Lansing, MI) William J. Perrone (Lansing, MI)
Bankruptcy and Creditor-Debtor Rights Law Richard M. Bendix, Jr. (Chicago, IL) Ronald L. Rose (Bloomfield Hills, MI) Sheryl L. Toby (Bloomfield Hills, MI)
Bet-the-Company Litigation James M. Cameron, Jr. (Ann Arbor, MI) James P. Feeney (Bloomfield Hills, MI) Robert J. Franzinger (Detroit, MI) Patrick F. Hickey (Detroit, MI) E. Edward Hood (Ann Arbor, MI) Marilyn A. Peters (Bloomfield Hills, MI)
Commercial Litigation Susan Artinian (Detroit, MI) James M. Cameron, Jr. (Ann Arbor, MI) Samuel C. Damren (Detroit, MI) James P. Feeney (Bloomfield Hills, MI) Robert J. Franzinger (Detroit, MI) Dennis M. Haffey (Bloomfield Hills, MI) Patrick F. Hickey (Detroit, MI) E. Edward Hood (Ann Arbor, MI) Peter M. Kellett (Detroit, MI) Lori McAllister (Lansing, MI) Marilyn A. Peters (Bloomfield Hills, MI)
Corporate Governance and Compliance Law Mark A. Metz (Detroit, MI) Aleksandra A. Miziolek (Detroit, MI)
Corporate Law Jin-Kyu Koh (Detroit, MI) Mark A. Metz (Detroit, MI) Aleksandra A. Miziolek (Detroit, MI) Brian J. Page (Grand Rapids, MI) Paul R. Rentenbach (Detroit, MI) Rex E. Schlaybaugh, Jr. (Detroit, MI) Thomas S. Vaughn (Detroit, MI)
Employee Benefits Law Margaret A. Hunter (Detroit, MI)
Energy Law Albert Ernst (Lansing, MI)
Environmental Law Joseph C. Basta (Ann Arbor, MI) John A. Ferroli (Grand Rapids, MI) Grant P. Gilezan (Detroit, MI) Jerome I. Maynard (Chicago, IL)
Gaming Law R. Lance Boldrey (Lansing, MI) Leonard C. Wolfe (Lansing, MI)
Government Relations Law Gary P. Gordon (Lansing, MI) William J. Perrone (Lansing, MI) Leonard C. Wolfe (Lansing, MI)
Health Care Law Maria B. Abrahamsen (Bloomfield Hills, MI) Kathrin E. Kudner (Detroit, MI) Seth M. Lloyd (Detroit, MI) Thomas J. McGraw (Detroit, MI)
Immigration Law Derek I. Meier (Detroit, MI)
Information Technology Law Stephen L. Tupper (Bloomfield Hills, MI)
Insurance Law Lori McAllister (Lansing, MI)
Intellectual Property Law James M. Cameron, Jr. (Ann Arbor, MI)
Labor and Employment Law Robert L. Duty (Bloomfield Hills, MI) John A. Entenman (Detroit, MI) Martin Jay Galvin (Detroit, MI) Seth M. Lloyd (Detroit, MI) Debra M. McCulloch (Bloomfield Hills, MI) Melvin J. Muskovitz (Ann Arbor, MI) Joseph A. Ritok, Jr. (Detroit, MI) Ronald J. Santo (Ann Arbor, MI)
Land Use & Zoning Law Alan M. Greene (Bloomfield Hills, MI)
Mass Tort Litigation E. Lee Horton (Los Angeles, CA)
Mergers & Acquisitions Law J. Michael Bernard (Detroit, MI) Gerald T. Lievois (Bloomfield Hills, MI)
Non-Profit/Charities Law Jane Forbes (Detroit, MI)
Personal Injury Litigation E. Lee Horton (Los Angeles, CA)
Product Liability Litigation Michael C. Borders (Chicago, IL) James M. Cameron, Jr. (Ann Arbor, MI) James P. Feeney (Bloomfield Hills, MI) Peter M. Kellett (Detroit, MI)
Professional Malpractice Law Thomas R. Hill (Chicago, IL)
Public Finance Law Ann D. Fillingham (Lansing, MI)
Real Estate Law Fred J. Fechheimer (Bloomfield Hills, MI) Alan M. Greene (Bloomfield Hills, MI) Joel D. Kellman (Bloomfield Hills, MI) Michael S. Kurtzon (Chicago, IL) Cameron H. Piggott (Detroit, MI) Michael F. Sexton (Chicago, IL) Wilfred A. Steiner, Jr. (Detroit, MI)
Securities Law Jin-Kyu Koh (Detroit, MI) Gerald T. Lievois (Bloomfield Hills, MI) D. Richard McDonald (Bloomfield Hills, MI) Mark A. Metz (Detroit, MI) Rex E. Schlaybaugh, Jr. (Detroit, MI) Thomas S. Vaughn (Detroit, MI)
Tax Law Steven E. Grob (Detroit, MI)
Trusts and Estates Eric T. Carver (Detroit, MI) Michael G. Cumming (Bloomfield Hills, MI) Marie R. Deveney (Ann Arbor, MI) James M. Elsworth (Detroit, MI) William E. Fisher (Detroit, MI) Rob Tiplady (Ann Arbor, MI)
Forman Perry
Ranked #1 in Mississippi in Mass Tort Litigation with 4 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Jackson, MS in Mass Tort Litigation with 4 attorneys.
Bet-the-Company Litigation Alan W. Perry (Jackson, MS)
Commercial Litigation Fred Krutz (Jackson, MS) Alan W. Perry (Jackson, MS) Phillip S. Sykes (Jackson, MS)
Corporate Law Alan W. Perry (Jackson, MS)
Environmental Law Thomas W. Tardy III (Jackson, MS) Walter G. Watkins, Jr. (Jackson, MS)
Mass Tort Litigation Fred Krutz (Jackson, MS) Daniel J. Mulholland (Jackson, MS) Thomas W. Tardy III (Jackson, MS) Walter G. Watkins, Jr. (Jackson, MS)
Product Liability Litigation Thomas W. Tardy III (Jackson, MS) Walter G. Watkins, Jr. (Jackson, MS)
Professional Malpractice Law Phillip S. Sykes (Jackson, MS)
Real Estate Law Steven M. Hendrix (Jackson, MS)
Tax Law Steven M. Hendrix (Jackson, MS)
Gibbons
Ranked #1 in New Jersey in Appellate Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in New Jersey in Bankruptcy and Creditor-Debtor Rights Law with 5 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Newark, NJ in Appellate Law with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Newark, NJ in Bankruptcy and Creditor-Debtor Rights Law with 5 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Newark, NJ in Criminal Defense: White-Collar with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Newark, NJ in Environmental Law with 3 attorneys.
Alternative Dispute Resolution John J. Gibbons (Newark, NJ) Herman D. Michels (Newark, NJ)
Antitrust Law Michael R. Griffinger (Newark, NJ) Brian J. McMahon (Newark, NJ)
Appellate Law Michael R. Griffinger (Newark, NJ) Lawrence S. Lustberg (Newark, NJ) Kevin McNulty (Newark, NJ)
Banking Law Michael J. Lubben (Newark, NJ)
Bankruptcy and Creditor-Debtor Rights Law Dale E. Barney (Newark, NJ) Karen A. Giannelli (Newark, NJ) Michael R. Griffinger (Newark, NJ) Geraldine E. Ponto (Newark, NJ) Frank J. Vecchione (Newark, NJ)
Bet-the-Company Litigation Michael R. Griffinger (Newark, NJ)
Commercial Litigation Patrick C. Dunican, Jr. (Newark, NJ) Michael R. Griffinger (Newark, NJ) Michael R. McDonald (Newark, NJ) Kevin J. McKenna (Newark, NJ) Brian J. McMahon (Newark, NJ) Peter J. Torcicollo (Newark, NJ)
Construction Law William G. Frey (Philadelphia, PA) Robert J. MacPherson (Newark, NJ)
Corporate Governance and Compliance Law Alyce C. Halchak (Newark, NJ)
Corporate Law Frank T. Cannone (Newark, NJ) Alyce C. Halchak (Newark, NJ)
Criminal Defense: White-Collar Robert M. Hanna (Newark, NJ) Bruce A. Levy (Newark, NJ) Lawrence S. Lustberg (Newark, NJ)
Environmental Law John H. Klock (Newark, NJ) Edward F. McTiernan (Newark, NJ) Susanne Peticolas (Newark, NJ)
First Amendment Law John J. Gibbons (Newark, NJ)
Franchise Law H. John Schank II (Newark, NJ)
Government Relations Law David J. Pascrell (Trenton, NJ)
Intellectual Property Law David E. DeLorenzi (Newark, NJ)
Labor and Employment Law Christine A. Amalfe (Newark, NJ) Loren Gesinsky (New York, NY)
Land Use & Zoning Law Douglas J. Janacek (Newark, NJ)
Mergers & Acquisitions Law Alyce C. Halchak (Newark, NJ)
Natural Resources Law Edward F. McTiernan (Newark, NJ)
Product Liability Litigation Joseph M. Cincotta (Philadelphia, PA) Stephen J. Imbriglia (Philadelphia, PA) Madeline M. Sherry (Philadelphia, PA)
Public Finance Law John D. Draikiwicz (Newark, NJ)
Real Estate Law Russell B. Bershad (Newark, NJ) Peter J. Carton (Newark, NJ)
Tax Law Alyce C. Halchak (Newark, NJ) Peter J. Ulrich (Newark, NJ)
Goodell DeVries
Ranked #1 in Maryland in Medical Malpractice Law with 4 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Baltimore, MD in Medical Malpractice Law with 4 attorneys.
Bet-the-Company Litigation Linda S. Woolf (Baltimore, MD)
Commercial Litigation Sidney G. Leech (Baltimore, MD) Linda S. Woolf (Baltimore, MD)
Legal Malpractice Law Jeffrey J. Hines (Baltimore, MD)
Mass Tort Litigation Charles P. Goodell, Jr. (Baltimore, MD)
Medical Malpractice Law Donald L. DeVries, Jr. (Baltimore, MD) Amy B. Heinrich (Baltimore, MD) Craig B. Merkle (Baltimore, MD) Susan T. Preston (Baltimore, MD)
Personal Injury Litigation Donald L. DeVries, Jr. (Baltimore, MD) Sidney G. Leech (Baltimore, MD) Craig B. Merkle (Baltimore, MD)
Sandberg Phoenix
Ranked #1 in Missouri in Medical Malpractice Law with 4 attorneys. Ranked #1 in St. Louis, MO in Medical Malpractice Law with 4 attorneys. Ranked #1 in St. Louis, MO in Product Liability Litigation with 4 attorneys.
Commercial Litigation G. Keith Phoenix (St. Louis, MO) Jonathan Ries (St. Louis, MO) John S. Sandberg (St. Louis, MO)
Health Care Law Kenneth W. Bean (St. Louis, MO)
Medical Malpractice Law Kenneth W. Bean (St. Louis, MO) G. Keith Phoenix (St. Louis, MO) Jonathan Ries (St. Louis, MO) Peter von Gontard (St. Louis, MO)
Personal Injury Litigation Kenneth W. Bean (St. Louis, MO) G. Keith Phoenix (St. Louis, MO) John S. Sandberg (St. Louis, MO) Peter von Gontard (St. Louis, MO)
Product Liability Litigation G. Keith Phoenix (St. Louis, MO) Jonathan Ries (St. Louis, MO) John S. Sandberg (St. Louis, MO) Peter von Gontard (St. Louis, MO)
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell
Ranked #1 in Colorado in Personal Injury Litigation with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Colorado in Product Liability Litigation with 5 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Denver, CO in Personal Injury Litigation with 3 attorneys. Ranked #1 in Denver, CO in Product Liability Litigation with 5 attorneys.
Bet-the-Company Litigation Hugh Q. Gottschalk (Denver, CO) Michael L. O'Donnell (Denver, CO)
Commercial Litigation Hugh Q. Gottschalk (Denver, CO) Michael L. O'Donnell (Denver, CO) John R. Trigg (Denver, CO) John M. Vaught (Denver, CO)
Insurance Law Terence M. Ridley (Denver, CO) John M. Vaught (Denver, CO)
Labor and Employment Law Raymond W. Martin (Denver, CO)
Legal Malpractice Law Michael L. O'Donnell (Denver, CO)
Mass Tort Litigation John M. Fitzpatrick (Denver, CO)
Medical Malpractice Law John M. Fitzpatrick (Denver, CO) Kevin J. Kuhn (Denver, CO)
Personal Injury Litigation John M. Fitzpatrick (Denver, CO) Michael L. O'Donnell (Denver, CO) Malcolm E. Wheeler (Denver, CO)
Product Liability Litigation John M. Fitzpatrick (Denver, CO) Hugh Q. Gottschalk (Denver, CO) Michael L. O'Donnell (Denver, CO) John R. Trigg (Denver, CO) Malcolm E. Wheeler (Denver, CO)
Professional Malpractice Law John M. Fitzpatrick (Denver, CO)
GOODELL DEVRIES WIN HIGH PROFILE MED MAL CASE IN FEDERAL COURT
Last week Susan Preston, Danielle Dinsmore and Derek Stikeleather took a dismissal of all claims in a medical malpractice suit by a former TV morning news personality in the U.S.D.C. for the District of Maryland.
Plaintiff alleged that the client doctor and hospital failed to diagnose his stroke in 2005 resulting in a subsequent stroke two days later. Defendants successfully challenged the reliability of the expert testimony of both of plaintiff's causation witnesses under Daubert. The Court granted defendants' Daubert motion, finding both experts' testimony inadmissible, and entered summary judgment for all defendants.
The court held inadmissible ipse dixit the opinion that medications to treat stroke probably would have prevented plaintiff's stroke within 48 hours in the face of uncontroverted epidemiological studies that repeatedly show the short-term efficacy of such drugs to be less than fifty per cent.
Jean Edwards and Paul Neils with Akerman's intellectual property practice will lead the first four days of the seminar during which Edwards and Neils will outline procedures for drafting patent applications and claims, and the rules pertaining to restriction practice, continuations, appeals, reissues and reexaminations. They will also examine several key sections of Title 35 of the United States Code, and the patent cooperation treaty.
In addition to reviewing key changes proposed in the Patent Reform Act of 2009, the final day of the seminar offers a comprehensive look into the latest developments in patent prosecution and litigation and will feature a panel discussion on Managing a Patent Portfolio in a Downturn Economy. The panel discussion will include insights from industry experts Dr. Ken Bradley, Vice President, Development, Haemonetics Corporation, Eric Halber, Corporate Patent Counsel, and Bruce Reiner, M.D.
Friday, September 04, 2009
ALTEC SHOWS APPRECIATION FOR EXCELLENT TRIAL RESULT
Bobby Hood, Bobby Hood, Jr., and Jamie Hood took a defense verdict for Altec Industries, Inc., in Hartman v. Altec, in Scranton, Pennsylvania recently. Plaintiff suffered significant electrical burns that he alleged were due to defects in Altec's product, but the jury thought otherwise.
The trial team then studiously worked the trial over and over again in their minds during three days of fly-fishing on the South Fork of the Snake River in Idaho. Altec presented the trial team with rods, reels, and fishing accessories (including the lovely color-coordinated shirts shown in the above picture).
ORLANDO, Fla. - (Business Wire) The Florida Natural Gas Association in partnership with Akerman Senterfitt today announced that it will hold its first annual Natural Gas Summit on October 1-2 in Orlando. The meeting will explore numerous topics, including the natural gas industry as a partner in the green energy movement; natural gas exploration; reliability of supply; minimizing energy price volatility and efficient end uses of natural gas; natural gas vehicles, among others.
"This is a pivotal time for the energy industry both in Florida and the entire country," said G. David Rogers, Executive Director of Florida Natural Gas Association. "We are very pleased to bring together such a prominent group of leaders to discuss how natural gas plays a fundamental role in our states and our nation’s evolving energy needs."
Several notable speakers have been confirmed, including FERC Commissioner Mark Spitzer, U.S. Rep. Adam Putnam, James Murley, Chairman of the Florida’s Energy and Climate Commission and Florida Representatives Seth McKeel and Denise Grimsley. Also participating on panel discussions are representatives of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, Associated Industries of Florida, American Gas Association, Florida Building Commission, among others.
"As the cleanest of all the fossil fuels, natural gas plays a vital role in transitioning our state toward cleaner, more responsible, energy consumption," said Lila Jaber, a Co-Chair of Akerman's Energy practice and former Chair of the Florida Public Service Commission. "The utility of natural gas on both commercial and residential levels underscores how important this resource is for our energy infrastructure."
The summit will take place Thursday October 1st and Friday October 2nd at Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate.
The lawyers in Akerman's Energy practice represent some of the largest providers of energy and natural gas service. The group includes a former Chairman of the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC), a former General Counsel to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the former Chief Counsel to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Akerman assists clients with involvement and exposure to all levels of government and the political process, and in all facets of environmental counseling, transactional, financing, and permitting matters related to energy, renewable energy and fuels.
About Florida Natural Gas Association
The Florida Natural Gas Association (FNGA) is non-profit organization that promotes and encourages the growth of the natural gas industry in the state of Florida. It also seeks to protect the interests of the industry, its members and consumers. Our members include gas distribution companies, pipeline companies, gas supply marketers and affiliate members. With a membership of more than 100 companies, FNGA represents every segment of the natural gas industry."
Florida Natural Gas Association Kim Barber, 850-681-0496 kim@floridagas.org
The results, which appear in Intelligent Insurer's September 2009 issue, are based on an industry-wide survey of re/insurance executives and general counsel. Nixon Peabody's Re/Insurance industry practice -- one of the world's leading and largest -- has deep industry knowledge and experience in international arbitration, litigation, corporate transactions, private equity, finance, intellectual property, and regulation. Please click here to view the full article.
Snell & Wilmer attorneys Lee Mickus, Dan Rodman and Arron Nesbitt recently won a defense verdict in favor of Ford Motor Company and a Ford dealer in a California product liability lawsuit arising from a rollover crash of a 1996 Ford Explorer. The driver allegedly lost control of his Explorer when taking evasive action to avoid a collision with another vehicle. The Explorer went into a sideways slide and rolled over 3.5 times. The driver's wife died in the crash and two children passengers were injured.
Plaintiffs alleged the vehicle was defective as to its handling characteristics, stability and roof strength. Plaintiffs’ lawyers suggested that the jury should award more than $100 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
The Snell & Wilmer defense team presented evidence that the 1996 Explorer responds appropriately to emergency maneuvers and exceeds all federal motor vehicle safety standards. The defense team also established that the driver's severe and abrupt steers caused the crash.
After deliberating for approximately eight hours following a seven week trial, a twelve person jury returned a verdict in favor of Ford Motor Company and its dealer on all claims.
As an attorney, David Resnick has represented biotechs. Now, he's donated marrow for stem cells himself.
Nixon Peabody biotech lawyer David S. Resnick, who has focused a portion of his patent work on stem cell technology innovations, has now become a stem cell donor himself. Image: Boston Business Journal
As David S. Resnick voluntarily took in a cocktail of drugs to prepare his bone marrow for an impending harvest of his stem cells, he reflected on a bit of irony:
Most of his 47 years have been spent in a manner to avoid the doctor's office.
"People who know me know I'm neurotic. I eat little red meat. I exercise all the time," said Resnick. "I bike, I run, I take fish oil."
Resnick, a co-practice group leader and partner at Boston-based Nixon Peabody LLP, is undergoing the painful process of donating stem cells because of a commitment he made 10 years earlier, when he added his name to the National Marrow Donor Program's registry, an occasion that Resnick doesn't even remember now.
One month ago Resnick got a call from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. His bone marrow was a match to an anonymous patient with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and she needed a stem cell transplant to repopulate her marrow with healthy cells. After being given a clean bill of health by Dana-Farber, Resnick agreed to the donation. The donation process began a month ago.
On a professional level, Resnick, who has been a biotech lawyer for two decades, has gained a deeper understanding of the inventors he works with regularly on stem cell-related patents.
Currently, Resnick handles patent work for several local institutions, including the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.
The National Marrow Donor Program's "Be the Match" registry organizes about 4,300 transplants annually, and about 60 percent of those consist of adult stem cells, according to a recent story in the Washington Post.
"About two-thirds of everybody whose life could be saved with this therapy can't get a donor," said M. William Lensch, a stem cell scientist working at Children's Hospital Boston. He also is an instructor in pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and a friend and colleague of Resnick's. "(David) is a hero. He’s really going the extra mile. He's walking it like he talks it."
During this process, Resnick is also part of a medical research study for the drug Neupogen, which is part of the drug cocktail that's given to bone marrow donors to stimulate the overproduction of stem cells in bone marrow. That process allows for a high number of cells to be collected.
"On a personal basis, I lost my mom to cancer. A bone marrow transplant would not have helped. It's a horrible disease," Resnick said. "But, I thought when they asked me, if it was someone in my family and I couldn't give them my bone marrow, I would want someone else to do it."
Resnick's treatment involves four days of drug injections at Dana-Farber. On the fifth day Resnick will be hooked up to an Apheresis machine which filters out the stem cells for about seven hours.
"The scariest part of the process is that they keep having to tell you about all the side effects," Resnick said.
Those potential side effects include bone pain, extreme fatigue, and tingling hands and feet. And although Resnick was told that one patient's spleen exploded during the process, no one has died to date.
"That was reassuring," he said. "I was concerned about the side effects, although it did not cross my mind not to do it."
Thursday, August 20, 2009
LAW FIRMS COURT CLIENTS WITH FLAT FEES By Getahn Ward • THE TENNESSEAN • August 16, 2009
When Gaylord Entertainment Co. needed a law firm to help prepare and file a document with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the hotel company's executives arranged to pay a flat fee for the work — rather than a law firm's hourly rate.
That gambit saved Nashville-based Gaylord as much as 20 percent on the project, said Carter Todd, Gaylord's general counsel.
In the current recession, companies are demanding more flexibility and certainty in legal fees in a bid to control costs. That's putting pressure on law firms — and coaxing many to offer discounts or alternatives to rates that can reach $1,000 an hour ....
Cost-conscious companies such as Gaylord, a hotel chain and owner of the Grand Ole Opry, also are offering more work to regional and local law firms — including the ones in Nashville where hourly rates are easily half of the fees charged by big national law firms.
"We've been able to get good value right here because of quality of the Nashville bar," said Todd, who received help from Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Mitch Walker in preparing a registration statement to allow Gaylord to issue new securities.
Traditionally, lawyers have billed clients at an hourly rate that's often determined by the attorney's experience and the going rate in the market. That rate is multiplied by time spent on the matter. Clients typically get an itemized bill for services performed.
Some legal experts say that though creativity in pricing should continue, talk about the death of the billable hour is greatly exaggerated.
"It tells them something about what work was done and what they're getting for their money," said Keith Simmons, Bass Berry's managing partner, about why some general counsels and clients prefer billable hours even amid cost-cutting urgency.
In cases involving litigation, it can be more difficult to charge a flat rate because of how complex a case might be and uncertainty over how many depositions might be needed or how the opposing side will pursue its case.
But in matters that are more transactional, it's easier to estimate costs in advance and establish a fixed price, company executives and attorneys here say. Some alternative arrangements, however, still include flexibility in the event that costs run unexpectedly high.
Fixed rate aids budgets
For general counsels such as Todd, the flat rate helps a company budget for a project because it can prevent surprises later. Several other corporations also said they've seen benefits to negotiating a flat rate.
Hospital chain HCA Inc., for instance, cut its outside legal fees by 23 percent from 2006 to 2008 through fixed-fee arrangements with law firms and adjusting responsibilities of in-house counsels, said Ed Fishbough, a spokesman for the Nashville-based company.
Law firms, meanwhile, see being flexible as a way to keep business at a time when deals have slowed in niches such as legal work tied to mergers and acquisitions. To make up for the slowdown, some area law firms have cut jobs; others have reassigned partners and associates to work in higher-demand areas such as real estate foreclosures or bankruptcies.
Over the past two years, law firm Drescher & Sharp has used a system called SmartLaw that allows it to offer clients a menu of services for a flat monthly fee.
"It's like outsourcing your in-house counsel," said Kevin H. Sharp, a partner with the firm.
"They're my first call when anything remotely of a legal or contractual nature comes up," said John Rosata, president of client Capital Strategies Advisory Group.
Rosata recalls a case two years ago in which Drescher & Sharp and a big New York law firm represented his company in a successful lawsuit against a global investment bank. The local firm's bill was a quarter of that of the New York law firm.
Lower rates aside, having expertise in a niche such as health care also can help the cause of a regional law firm as it tries to woo the business of key corporate clients, and perhaps win legal work from the portfolio of a larger law firm.
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis LLP recently was retained by a large Texas-based hospital company that felt Waller's expertise and rate structure fit its needs better than a significantly larger firm, said John C. Tishler, Waller's chairman.
"Clients are becoming very savvy consumers of our services," he said. "We offer in some cases something a little better, and a client can hire a senior partner at Waller for less than they'd be paying a second- or third-year associate in another city."
But in some cases, corporate boards prefer going with a big New York firm — if only because the name recognition can create a greater image of potential success.
That was the situation when Gaylord faced a potential proxy fight with two large investors that earlier this year sought to get their own candidates seats on its board of directors and force changes in management.
A settlement prevented what could have been a bitter showdown after Gaylord spent almost $1 million, including legal costs to a New York law firm.
In that case, Gaylord also used Bass Berry, whose rates were about half as much as the New York firm's charges.
Waller, meanwhile, is working with clients on the front end to set budgets for projects and help them understand what they'd get for their money. It's also more willing to exclude certain services, assign the work to a less-costly lawyer in the firm, or accept a flat-fee arrangement to help a client cut costs.
"We've done that and expect we would do more of that," Tishler said.
Bass, Berry & Sims PLC ... in Nashville, Tenn., announced today the completion of its first associate litigation training program, culminating in full-scale mock jury trials at Vanderbilt University Law School.
The firm also took an unusual step by posting examples of the training sessions, including opening statements, direct examinations, and closing arguments, on YouTube.
The six-month program, spearheaded by attorneys Michael Dagley and Overton Thompson, was designed to provide associates with direct litigation, trial advocacy, and jury persuasion experience. The goal of the training, planned as a regular event, is to prepare associates to become first-chair trial lawyers early in their careers -- a client-service strategy to provide quality service at non-senior rates.
"Our firm is committed to investing time and resources for training on a scale that we believe has only previously been accomplished by larger firms," said Dagley. "Even at many larger firms, few associates can expect to try cases, much less serve as first-chair."
"For us, the benefits are many," added Dagley. "We gain real competitive advantages by sharing knowledge and experience with a new generation of top attorneys, but we are also better positioned to provide superior client service by building more diverse trial teams."
The firm's program, in which senior attorneys acted as judges, centered on a mock case called BMI v. Minicom, a classic breach of contract case first devised by the National Institute of Trial Advocacy. The trials also provided training for the firm's summer associates, who acted as jurors.
"It is a privilege to be given such extensive trial experience so early in my career," associate attorney Allyn Rubright said. "At a time when so many other firms are focusing only on their top rainmakers, Bass, Berry & Sims has strategically focused on strengthening its litigation team, which, in turn, allows for higher-quality service without increasing rates."
TRIAL.COM WEBSITE NOTED IN LAW.COM'S LEGAL TECHNOLOGY NEWS
The Network's website, TRIAL.COM, was mentioned in "Tips to Drive Traffic to Your Web Site" by Stacy West Clark And Jason P. Lisi, The Legal Intelligencer, August 20, 2009.
*** make sure you have a domain name "that conveys what you do and is easily remembered," said Ellis Mirsky, the general counsel of The Network of Trial Law Firms who secured the domain name of trial.com [in 1994]. As he said, "having done that, nothing much more has been needed." Mirsky also purchased other domain names for his site -- all of which point to trial.com.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
BASS, BERRY & SIMS NAMED A 2009 BEST LAW FIRM FOR WOMEN For the second year in a row, Bass, Berry & Sims PLC has been named one of the Best Law Firms for Women by Working Mother magazine and Flex-Time Lawyers. Working Mother, the authoritative source for career mothers, and Flex-Time Lawyers LLC, a national consulting firm advising attorneys and legal employers on work/life balance, selected Bass, Berry & Sims PLC for its continued attention to work-life and women's issues and the increased use of flex-time, reduced-hour and other family-friendly policies.
Women comprise 32 percent of the firm's attorney workforce and women hold several leadership roles within the firm, including Leigh Walton (Executive Committee and co-chair of the Healthcare Practice Group), Anna Grizzle (Entry Level Hiring chair), Cindy Sellers (Business Development and Client Relations chair), Karen S. Neal (Diversity Committee chair), Laura Brothers (Female Mentor Group chair) and Susan Foxman (Professional Development Committee chair).
A formal policy allowing for alternate work schedules is among several initiatives for which Bass, Berry & Sims PLC is recognized. "Our firm values the fact that attorneys may choose to reduce the amount of time devoted to their practice as a matter of personal or professional choice," said Neal. "Our attorneys who opt for a reduced or flexible work schedule are provided with the same administrative and advancement opportunities as full-time attorneys."
Another asset is the firm's active Female Mentor Group. "The group provides a congenial and supportive environment, as well as real opportunities for business, professional, and personal development," said Brothers. Since 2005, the Female Mentor Group has hosted the popular "Salute to Women Executives," an annual program for the firm's executive female clients that focuses on the success of women in the workforce. "The firm has an ongoing commitment to developing a working environment that not only supports but encourages work-life balance and the retention and advancement of women," continued Brothers.
"The recession has created a shift in the legal industry and now is the time to push through mutually-beneficial, cost-effective reforms that directly benefit work-life balance and allow working moms to succeed both at home and in the court room," said Carol Evans, president, Working Mother Media. "We salute the 2009 Best Law Firms for recognizing that making the legal profession work for women is good business for everyone."
Friday, August 14, 2009
SANDBERG PHOENIX & VON GONTARD RANKED FIRST IN MISSOURI FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LAW Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard is honored to have been ranked #1 in the State of Missouri in the area of Medical Malpractice Law with four attorneys being named in the 2010 edition of Best Lawyers.
The firm also ranked #1 in St. Louis in the areas of Medical Malpractice Law and Products Liability Litigation with four attorneys being named in each area of law.
The following Sandberg Phoenix attorneys have been selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2010 edition of Best Lawyers: Kenneth W. Bean (Health Care Law, Medical Malpractice Law and Personal Injury Litigation), G. Keith Phoenix (Commercial Litigation, Medical Malpractice Law, Personal Injury Litigation and Product Liability Litigation), Jonathan Ries (Commercial Litigation, Medical Malpractice Law and Product Liability Litigation), John S. Sandberg (Commercial Litigation, Personal Injury Litigation and Product Liability Litigation) and Peter von Gontard (Medical Malpractice Law, Personal Injury Litigation and Product Liability Litigation).
VIEW AGENDA AND REGISTER HERE Approved in New York State for 6 hours of non-transitional CLE credit, including 1 hour of ethics credit (comparable approval in other States expected)
Build It and They Will Come: Fast-moving 18-minute staccato presentations, powerful videos, interactive working-lunch break-out sessions on a variety of hot topics, and 20 real defense trial lawyers speaking from experience in an historic mid-town venue with tremendous capacity mark this seventh annual litigation management CLE program -- one that many regard as the best CLE they've ever attended.
To show it, in-house counsel are voting with the feet. More than 200 have already registered together with 50 U.S. and Canada defense trial lawyers for our Friday, August 7 program, always free to in-house counsel.
A Typical Working-Lunch Break-out Session
Can't make it to the program? No problem. The Network delivers CLE 24/7 on-line as streaming video CLE, also without charge to in-house counsel, and only a nominal charge for others. Or email us and we'll send you our materials (free, of course).
Haven't registered yet? This program is very popular and usually fills up. Advanced registration is advised.
Any questions, please call us at 914-332-4400.
---------- *The Network of Trial Law Firms, Inc. is a not-for-profit association of 24 law firms with 110 offices and more than 7,000 attorneys in the U.S., Canada and overseas. The Network has for 15 years produced cutting-edge litigation management continuing legal education and is not affiliated with The Association of the Bar of the City of New York.
Friday, July 31, 2009
In Politically Charged 'Takings' Case, Nixon Peabody Defeats New Hampshire (reprinted from) American Lawyer Am Law Litigation Daily By Ross Todd July 30, 2009 We've said it before and we'll say it again: We love "takings" cases, which seem always to involve wonderfully knotty facts and strangely appealing geographic diversity. Today's takings case brings us north, to the great state of New Hampshire, where takings has become a political hot button.
Like many states these days, New Hampshire is facing a budget shortfall. In February the Granite State's Democratic governor, John Lynch, proposed a novel plan to help balance the budget: New Hampshire could transfer $110 million into the state's coffers from surplus funds at the New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association, an insurance pool set up by the legislature in the mid-1970s to cover doctors who couldn't obtain policies elsewhere. In June, the state legislature enacted a law directing the insurance pool to transfer the $110 million to the state's general fund.
A group of more than 200 policyholders promptly filed a suit challenging the transfer. The group's Nixon Peabody lawyers argued--you guessed it--that the law was a violation of the state and U.S constitutional prohibition on takings, since policyholders' insurance policies clearly stated that excess funds were to be distributed to them.
On Wednesday, in a 27-page decision, state court justice Kathleen McGuire agreed, handing Nixon Peabody and the policyholders a win. The insurance pool, she found, is not a state agency; the policyholders' contracts clearly indicated that they were to receive surplus funds; and the legislature's attempt to appropriate the pool's excess money "violates the 'takings' clauses of the state and federal constitutions," she wrote.
Kevin Fitzgerald of Nixon Peabody called the state's main argument--that since New Hampshire granted the insurance pool tax-exempt status and has powers to keep it solvent, the pool is state-controlled--the Bill Cosby theory: "I brought you into this world, I can take you out," Fitzgerald jokes. (His quip inspired us to unearth this video clip from the pilot episode of The Cosby Show, in which Cosby utters the famous line. It's hilarious.)
New Hampshire's outside lawyers at Boston's Rackemann, Sawyer & Brewster didn't return our call for comment. But shortly after Judge McGuire's decision came down, Governor Lynch released a statement saying that the state planned to appeal. "The Joint Underwriting Authority was established--and given tax-free status as a state entity--in order to provide a service, not a windfall, to doctors," Lynch said. "These surplus funds belong to the citizens of New Hampshire, who created the Joint Underwriting Authority and gave it tax-exempt status."
Nixon Peabody’s Fitzgerald said he expects the appeal to move forward quickly. He also told us to expect other states to attempt budget solutions that might skirt the law. "I would be willing to bet [that] as long as there is dire financial need in governments, you run a risk of situations like this," Fitzgerald said.
MARY ANNE MELLOW APPOINTED VICE CHAIR OF CORPORATE AND INSURANCE FOR IADC MEDICAL DEFENSE COMMITTEE Mary Anne Mellow of Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard's St. Louis, Missouri office has been appointed Vice Chair of Corporate and Insurance for the International Association of Defense Counsel's (IADC) Medical Defense and Health Law Committee.
Mary Anne concentrates her practice in civil litigation involving product liability, medical malpractice and insurance defense. Mary Anne was named to the 2005, 2006 and 2007 Missouri & Kansas Super Lawyers in the Medical Malpractice area and also in 2007 and 2008 to the Products Liability area. In 2005 and 2008, she was named as one of the Top 50 Missouri & Kansas Female Super Lawyers.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
NH COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS BLOCKING PROPOSED TRANSFER OF $110 MILLION AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL Nixon Peabody LLP Represented Healthcare Providers A New Hampshire Superior Court Judge today ruled in favor of a coalition of more than 200 healthcare providers who argued that the State of New Hampshire has no right to take a $110 million surplus from the fund that provides malpractice insurance. The Belknap County Superior Court Judge decided that the legislation authorizing the transfer of $110 million from New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association (JUA) is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced. New Hampshire Governor John Lynch had wanted to use the money balance New Hampshire state budgets.
Fitzgerald said "we are very pleased with today's court decision." "The court found that policyholders have vested rights in surplus funds based on [their] contracts, the regulatory requirements and the nature and history of the JUA. [The] decision is based on New Hampshire law and not on authority from other states where similar takings have occurred."
The JUA was created to provide medical malpractice insurance coverage to New Hampshire healthcare providers. Under the individual insurance policies and the applicable regulations, policyholders are the sole parties entitled to receive surplus funds from the JUA and not the state.
"Today the court reaffirmed that the New Hampshire and United States constitutions constrain what states can do with regard to private property and private contracts," added Mr. O'Connell, Nixon Peabody partner representing the policyholders. "This is a victory and vindication for every New Hampshire citizen."
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
AAA APPOINTS BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSONS PARTNER SCOTT MARRS TO ITS COMMERCIAL PANEL OF ARBITRATORS The American Arbitration Association, a world leader in providing conflict management and dispute resolution services, appointed Beirne, Maynard & Parsons partner Scott D. Marrs to its Commercial Panel of Arbitrators.
Marrs has more than 20 years of experience providing pre-dispute, pretrial, trial, post-trial, and arbitration counseling to clients on intellectual property, energy, construction, international, and other commercial matters. He is nationally known as an authority on matters of intellectual property and commercial arbitration and litigation.
"I am honored to have been appointed to such an esteemed panel of my peers, and I look forward to working with the panel to assist parties in timely and efficiently resolving their disputes out of court," Marrs says of his recent appointment.
The global leader in conflict management since 1926, the American Arbitration Association is a not-for-profit, public service organization committed to the resolution of disputes through the use of arbitration, mediation, conciliation, negotiation, democratic elections and other voluntary procedures. Through 30 offices in the United States, Ireland, Mexico, and Singapore, the AAA provides a forum for the hearing of disputes, rules and procedures and a roster of impartial experts to resolve cases.
Monday, July 06, 2009
DYKEMA PREVAILS WITH FORD DEFENSE VERDICT IN WRONGFUL DEATH AND PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL OF VEHICLE FIRE Dykema's elite Automotive Industry Team won a defense verdict for Ford Motor Company in a product liability action brought by Sergio Ayala and Rufino and Marcella Garcia on behalf of decedent, Javier Garcia. The Garcias and Ayala alleged that a defect in the 1997 Ford Explorer caused a fire after the vehicle struck a tree at high speed. The case arose from a March 2005 accident in which Ayala, the driver of the Explorer who had also been drinking alcohol before the accident, suffered serious burn injuries and Javier Garcia, who was lying down in the rear cargo area, died.
"We are very pleased that the jury considered all of the evidence presented in this case and determined that Ford is not liable for the fire in question," said Clay Guise, a member of Dykema's Automotive Industry Team and counsel for Ford.
The Garcias alleged that Ford's failure to properly shield the Explorer's exhaust system from engine fluids caused a fire that ignited after the SUV struck a tree at approximately 60 mph. Ford and Dykema countered, arguing that the Explorer is safe, no vehicle can eliminate all potential hazards and no vehicle is designed to perform in accidents as severe as this one.
HOOD LAW FIRM WINS DEFENSE VERDICT IN WRONGFUL DEATH LAWSUIT Molly Craig and Jamie Hood won a defense verdict in a wrongful death case for a nephrologist who during the placement of an internal jugular catheter, punctured the subclavian artery resulting in loss of over five liters of blood, subsequent surgeries and prolonged and complicated ICU course. Ultimately, the patient died.
The defense argued that the physician encountered a known, albeit extremely rare, complication of placing an internal jugular catheter. Much of the trial focused on the distinction between medical complications and medical negligence. After a one week trial, the jury returned a defense verdict.
Monday, June 22, 2009
NIXON PEABODY SUES NEW HAMPSHIRE TO PREVENT LOOTING OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE FUNDS
Getting national attention in legal circles is biglaw Nixon Peabody's pre-emptive strike against the New Hampshire's Attorney General and Insurance Commissioner in a law suit and aggressive motions (including to disqualify the AG's office) aimed at stopping the State from raiding $110 million in insurer New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association's coffers to pay for the State's general obligations. The case is Tuttle v. New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association by and through its Board of Directors, No. 09-E-0148 (Belknap Co., N.H., Super. Ct.).
In an outstanding play on the legal chessboard, Nixon Peabody also moved to restrain the transfer of any funds and disqualify the New Hampshire Attorney General's office from representing the state agencies in the case.
(In an unrelated case, yesterday Nixon Peabody won a U.S. Supreme Court ruling for in a special needs student against a Texas school district over payment of the student's private school tuition. See Bingham Bests Sidley in SCOTUS Ruling on Special Needs Student.)
See press coverage in The National Law Journal, "Battle heats up in New Hampshire over surplus medical malpractice funds", by Sheri Qualters, June 22, 2009 (registration required).
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSONS' MARTIN BEIRNE FEATURED IN ABA JOURNAL ARTICLE "MOVING TO THE MIDDLE: SMALLER FIRMS GET CRACK AT BIGGER FISH" Martin D. Beirne of the Network's Texas firm, Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, is featured in and article in the May 2009 ABA Journal article about the increasing ability of mid-sized firms to recruit exceptional talent, including top-tier partners.
"Martin D. Beirne is in the driver's seat. Two years ago, the founding partner of Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, a Texas firm specializing in corporate litigation with offices in Houston and Dallas, might not have had a shot at recruiting top-tier talent from big-name firms.
"But these days, pedigreed partners from large international firms are knocking on his door, eager to discuss moving to a more stable environment that holds increasing appeal for budget-sensitive clients."
The entire article, "Moving to the Middle: Smaller Firms Get Crack at Bigger Fish", can be found here.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
FORMAN PERRY WATKINS KRUTZ & TARDY WINS TAKE-NOTHING DEFENSE VERDICT IN SILICOSIS LAWSUIT The Jackson, Mississippi-based civil trial law firm of Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy LLP is announcing a take-nothing defense verdict handed down in a silicosis lawsuit on behalf of three separate companies, despite the plaintiff's attorney asking for an award of $4.5 million. Name partner Fred Krutz, along with partner Edwin S. "Win" Gault Jr., and associate Jennifer Jones Skipper from Forman Perry successfully represented Clemco Industries Corp., the world's largest manufacturer of air-powered blast cleaning equipment, and Precision Packaging, a packaging services company.
Plaintiff Eugene Westrope, 73, of Hazelhurst, Miss., filed suit against 18 different companies in March 2007 based on claims that he contracted the lung disease silicosis after using or working around the companies' products from 1964 through 1995. Mr. Westrope settled or otherwise resolved his claims against 15 other defendants before trial.
During jury selection, Circuit Court Judge Lamar Pickard allowed the Forman Perry attorneys to review the last four digits of the social security numbers for jury pool members to help identify potential jurors who previously filed legal claims similar to those alleged by Mr. Westrope. The Court allowed this examination based on the high number of local residents who have filed their own lawsuits based on alleged exposure to silica and asbestos.
Using the firm's extensive database of mass tort plaintiffs, the Forman Perry team successfully argued for the removal of all potential jurors who had filed similar litigation. The firm also identified those whose relatives had filed silica or asbestos litigation, as well as those who lived with people who had filed similar claims. Those potential jurors also were dismissed by the Court before opening statements began on May 13.
On May 21, jurors issued the take-nothing verdict in favor of Clemco and Precision after finding that none of the companies were responsible for Mr. Westrope's injuries.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSONS' CLINT CORRIE'S ARTICLE SELECTED AS ONE OF ONLY FIVE BY "SECURITIES ARBITRATION COMMENTATOR" NEWSLETTER The Securities Arbitration Commentator Newsletter has selected Clint Corrie's article, "Record Retention Requirements in Securities Litigation and Arbitration" as one of their five excellent articles by scholars and practitioners in the field of securities arbitration, all to gain perspective on the events and developments. The netwletter's choices represent the strategic, as well as the tactical, the academic as well as the practical.
For an excerpt of the newletter, please click here.
Friday, May 15, 2009
WHEELER TRIGG KENNEDY TO BECOME WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL The partners of Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP have voted to change the 11-year-old firm's name to Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP. The change will be effective June 1, 2009. The nationally recognized litigation firm is chaired by Michael L. O'Donnell, one of the firm’s five founders, who becomes a named partner with this change. Two other founders, Malcolm Wheeler and Jack Trigg, remain active partners in the firm.
Managing Partner Hugh Gottschalk stated, "Mike has been the heart of the firm from day one, serving as chairman since its inception, as well as managing partner in its early years. He is also the inspirational founder and current president of the firm’s charitable foundation. The firm's name change honors Mike's outstanding leadership and vision for the firm."
Also, effective June 1, 2009, the Wheeler Trigg Kennedy Foundation will become the Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell Foundation. The firm's street address and phone numbers will remain the same. The Web site address will change to wtotrial.com. The e-mail addresses of firm personnel will change to [last name]@wtotrial.com.
HOOD LAW FIRM WINS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE The team at the Hood Law Firm, LLC of Charleston, South Carolina has continued their success with another big defense verdict. On April 24, 2009, the trial team of Jamie Hood and John Weedon obtained a defense verdict for a colorectal surgeon and his practice. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants performed a low anterior resection as opposed to a sigmoid colectomy which was the procedure that was called for as treatment for diverticulitis. Patient developed a pelvic abscess 15 days post-operative and alleged that Defendants failed to recognize signs of infection during the immediate 24 hour period following the procedure, which caused the abscess which ultimately led to severe pelvic floor dysfunction. Defendants established through objective medical evidence as well as expert testimony that a sigmoid colectomy was performed rather than a low anterior resection and that it was performed according to the standard of care. The Defendants' also proved that the patient exhibited no signs of infection at any point during the patient’s immediate post-operative course.
The Defendants made no settlement offers to the Plaintiff and after a one week trial, the jury returned a defense verdict.
VERDICT FOR HOOD LAW FIRM IN NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CASE Hood Law Firm, LLC, the Network's South Carolina firm, has continued its success with another excellent verdict. On April 22, 2009, the trial team of Chilton Grace Simmons and Elizabeth Ballentine obtained a $0 verdict for their client, Hilton Head Plantation Property Owners Association. Plaintiff Robert Hutka and co-defendant Michelle Tinti lived together and Plaintiff alleged they were engaged to be married. Plaintiff paid for the installation of a pool at Ms. Tinti's house on Hilton Head Island, with the alleged understanding she would reimburse him if they broke up. Ms. Tinti began a relationship with a security guard employed by Hilton Head Plantation Property Owners Association, and Plaintiff moved out of her house. Ms. Tinti subsequently filed domestic violence charges against Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged the charges were instigated by the new boyfriend (co-defendant Security Guard Don Lagomarsino). Plaintiff sued co-defendant Michelle Tinti for breach of contract for the cost of pool ($35,000). He also sued co-defendants Michelle Tinti and Security Guard Don Lagomarsino for breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. Plaintiff sued co-defendant Hilton Head Plantation Property Owners Association for negligent supervision and respondeat superior.
Judge Early struck Plaintiff's causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and malicious prosecution as to the co-defendants Tinti and Lagomarsino. After the three day trial, the jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiff for $0 as to Hood Law Firm's client, the Property Owners Association, on both counts. The jury found for the Plaintiff against co-defendants Tinti and Lagomarsino for $3,136, on the charge of civil conspiracy, and for the co-defendants on the charge of abuse of process. Judge Early decided the quantum meruit cause of action for the cost of the pool ($35,000) as it was a legal question instead of a jury question, and ruled in favor of co-defendant Michelle Tinti on that count.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
SNELL & WILMER PARTNER BARRY HALPERN SELECTED AS A 2009 DISTINGUISHED UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS SCHOOL OF LAW ALUMNUS Barry D. Halpern has been selected as a 2009 Distinguished University of Kansas (KU) Law School Alumnus. Halpern was honored by the KU Law School on Saturday, May 2, 2009. The KU Law School's Distinguished Alumni Award, the school's highest honor, is presented KU School of Law graduates who have distinguished themselves through exemplary service to the legal profession, their communities, the university, and the country.
Halpern's practice focuses on business and professional litigation, including antitrust, healthcare, and legislative matters. He represents a number of Arizona's largest businesses, including several hospitals and professional organizations. Halpern joined Snell & Wilmer's Phoenix office in 1978 and began practice as a litigator, defending business and professional liability lawsuits. While maintaining an active trial practice, Halpern helped spearhead Snell & Wilmer's growth from a mid-sized Phoenix firm to one of the nation's best known regional law firms with eight offices, including the Northern Mexico office opened in 2008 and the early 2009 expansion into downtown Los Angeles. Halpern has balanced his practice with writing, speaking, and teaching, including service on the adjunct faculty of the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University. He has published articles for law reviews and journals, including the Kansas Law Review, the Whittier Law Review, Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science, & Technology, and The Weekly Standard. He has also served on numerous bar, civic, and cultural boards. Halpern serves pro bono as a Superior Court Judge Pro Tem and has been listed in Best Lawyers in America for over a decade and named a Southwest Super Lawyer.
The Network welcomed its 24th member law firm this weekend at a meeting of in-house counsel and outside trial attorneys at the Silverado hotel in Napa, California. The meeting included approximately 8 hours of cutting edge litigation management CLE as well as a short course for the inner oenofile.
Bass Berry represents more than 30 publicly traded and Fortune 500 companies and have been involved in some of the largest and most important business and litigation matters in the country. Overton Thompson will be one of the firm's principal contact persons.
Overton is chair of the firm's Litigation Department. He focuses his practice on complex business litigation, including cases involving securities and shareholder class action defense, derivative actions, officer and director liability, intellectual property, breach of contract, business fraud, corporate and partnership dissolutions, lender liability, and trust and estates litigation.
Securities and Corporate: Overton has handled class actions, derivative actions, and merger and acquisition litigation for a number of public companies in cases pending in Tennessee, New York and Delaware. He was lead counsel for Genesco Inc. in its successful and much-publicized case involving the breach of a $1.5 billion merger agreement. The case, involving actions pending in both the Chancery Court of Davidson County, Tennessee and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, was reported in both The Wall Street Journal and The American Lawyer magazine. Overton was also lead counsel for an institutional minority-shareholder in the successful defense of a shareholder derivative/breach of fiduciary case tried in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Newcastle County. Overton has also handled cases involving alleged breaches of the securities laws, including particularly Section 10-b/10-b-5 cases.
Commercial and Banking: Overton has handled numerous cases over his career involving various commercial disputes. He has represented the plaintiff and defendant in a number of business fraud, breach of contract, and insurance disputes, representing companies in a wide array of industries. He has represented healthcare companies, senior-living providers, financial institutions and other businesses in cases pending in Tennessee and around the country. He has also represented both plaintiffs and defendants in a number of cases involving trusts and estates litigation.
Other Representative Matters include:
counsel for board of directors in successful defense of shareholder derivative action alleging defendants breached their fiduciary duty by manipulating the financial results and engaging in insider trading;
representation of mutual fund and fund investment advisor in class-action suit brought on behalf of former fund shareholders alleging various causes of action under federal securities laws and state common law;
representation of national accounting firm in securities class-action suit brought on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded company alleging causes of action under federal securities laws;
representation of large national bank in consumer class action alleging violations of the Truth-In-Lending Act;
successful representation of start-up hi-tech manufacturing business in case alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of covenants not to compete; and
successful representation of national bank in multiple lender liability claims asserted by purchasers of limited partnership interests in failed real estate ventures.
In Forbes v. Cockerham, 2008-C-762 (La. 1/21/2009), Isaac "Ike" Ryan of New Orleans' Deutch, Kerrigan & Stiles enrolled as appellate counsel following a $12.6M jury verdict against the State of Louisiana. The case involved an intoxicated and recklessly speeding motorist that ran off Greenwell Springs Road, a highway known as "the most dangerous road in Louisiana." The plaintiff, Joshua Forbes, was a nine-year-old boy who suffered the amputation of his right arm and catastrophic orthopedic injuries. The trial judge granted a JNOV, holding that the driver of the vehicle was 100% responsible. The Court of Appeal reversed and reinstated the jury verdict. Mr. Ryan successfully drafted a writ application to the Louisiana Supreme Court. After briefing and argument, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and overturned the jury's finding of fault. The State of Louisiana was held to be not at fault in the accident.
In Marcus Ryan v. Custom Ecology, 988 So.2d 214 (La.2008), Ike Ryan and Bob Kerrigan were enrolled as appellate counsel for a major insurance company after a Louisiana Court of Appeal overturned a jury's determination of $0 loss of future earning capacity and increased that award to $1.1 million. The defendants' sole option was to seek a writ of certiorari from the Louisiana Supreme Court. Mr. Kerrigan and Mr. Ryan successfully argued that the jury's determination of the amount, if any, of lost earning capacity is an issue of fact subject to the manifest error standard of review, and they showed that the jury's determination was supported by the evidence. The Louisiana Supreme Court agreed and found that the Court of Appeal inappropriately substituted its own judgment for the judgment of the trial court. The jury's verdict of "zero" was reinstated.
In Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Dunham Price Marine LLC, et al., John Fay represented Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., a publically traded aggregates and building materials company with revenues in excess of two billion dollars annually, in a trial where $1.5 million was at stake. The Plaintiff, Union Pacific Railroad Company, alleged that barges owned and operated by Martin Marietta broke away from their moorings during Hurricane Rita and collided with its railroad bridge in Westlake, Louisiana. It was alleged that Martin Marietta failed to prepare properly for Hurricane Rita, that it delayed in taking precautions to protect the barges from the anticipated forces of the Hurricane and that it left the barges in a poor location and improperly secured for the anticipated hurricane conditions. These claims were defended on the grounds that Martin Marietta personnel were properly monitoring the track and intensity of the hurricane, that proper precautions were made to identify a safe location for the barges and that the ultimate location and manner of securing the barges was reasonable and prudent when compared against the actions taken by prudent men under similar circumstances. After approximately four hours of deliberation the jury returned a verdict in favor of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., dismissing the railroad's claim at its cost. Mr. Fay was able to prepare and litigate this case at a substantial cost savings to our client when compared to the other parties in this case. During the course of the trial preparation the Railroad had three lawyers working on the case, and had two attorneys participating throughout the trial. Similarly, a co-defendant had two attorneys in trial at all times.
DYKEMA PREVAILS WITH DEFENSE VERDICT IN TRIAL OF HOME FIRE ALLEGEDLY CAUSED BY VEHICLE Dykema's elite Automotive Industry Team won a defense verdict for Ford Motor Company in a products liability action brought by Clarendon National Insurance Company, a U.S.-based property and casualty insurance company. Clarendon alleged that a home fire was caused by a defect in a Ford vehicle.
"We are very pleased that the jury considered all of the evidence at issue in this case and determined that Ford is not responsible for these damages," said Clay Guise, member of Dykema's Automotive Industry Team and lead counsel for Ford.
Clarendon alleged a defect in a Ford vehicle caused a fire that damaged the home of one of its insureds. Ford and Dykema countered, arguing that the fire originated in a different part of the garage and was not caused by the vehicle.
In Imperial County, California, a jury ruled in favor of Ford despite evidence that the vehicle in question was included in a previous product recall. Clarendon had sought recovery for payments of $200,000 made as a result of the incident.
Guise tried this case with Steven Smelser, a products liability attorney from Yukevich Calfo & Cavanaugh in Los Angeles.
The Plaintiff initially filed suit against his treating surgeon, his professional corporation and St. Joseph's Hospital of Atlanta in the State Court of Fulton County. He alleged that Defendants breached the applicable standard of care by failing to maintain a sterile surgical environment during an orthopaedic procedure to replace a knee. In support of his Complaint, the Plaintiff submitted the Affidavit of a non-surgeon infectious disease specialist.
A Motion to Dismiss was filed on behalf of the Defendant doctor and his corporation asserting that the Plaintiff had failed to set forth any specific act of negligence committed by Defendants and that the affidavit of the non-surgeon infectious disease specialist was insufficient to support a claim against an orthopaedic surgeon. This Motion was granted by the trial court, and in January 2008, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal.
On April 16, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued a ruling in favor of the Defendants/Appellees, affirming the judgment of the Court below. The win was big for WWHGD and its clients in that the Court of Appeals, instead of offering a formal, published opinion on the matter, simply adapted the Appellees arguments and based its ruling on "the reasons and authority given in Appellees' brief."
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
SNELL & WILMER AND WEINBERG WHEELER HUDGINS GUNN & DIAL OBTAIN DEFENSE VERDICT IN GEORGIA HOUSEBOAT DROWNING TRIAL A federal court jury in Albany, Georgia recently returned a unanimous defense verdict in favor of Sumerset Custom Houseboats, Inc. ("Sumerset") in a product liability case arising from a drowning on the Chattahoochee River. Sumerset was jointly represented at trial by Patrick X. Fowler of the Phoenix office of Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. and Y. Kevin Williams of the Atlanta, Georgia office of Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial, along with local counsel Louis Hatcher of the Albany, Georgia firm, Watson Spence.
The lawsuit was filed after a 57-year-old man drowned while trying to free an anchor that was stuck on the river bottom. Plaintiffs alleged that the man drowned due to exposure to carbon monoxide in the engine exhaust, and contended that the boat design was defective because it allowed propulsion engine exhaust to accumulate in a space beneath the rear deck of the boat where the propellers are located. Plaintiffs also alleged that the boat did not contain adequate warnings and information about the hazards of carbon monoxide. In its defense, Sumerset proved that the houseboat design was state-of-the-art, that the numerous alternative designs proposed by Plaintiffs were neither feasible nor available when the houseboat was built in 1999, and that the boat came with numerous warnings and information about carbon monoxide. Further, Sumerset presented evidence that carbon monoxide exposure probably did not cause the man to become disoriented while swimming in the cold, dark, murky river water beneath the large houseboat.
After a two-week trial, the jury returned the unanimous defense verdict in twenty minutes.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE WIN DEFENSE VERDICT FOR PHARMACIA CORP, ET AL. After a trial lasting more than two weeks, a Jefferson County jury returned a verdict in favor of Pharmacia Corporation against five individual plaintiffs who claimed that exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs caused them to develop diabetes or arthritis. The five plaintiffs were randomly selected from among approximately 3,000 plaintiffs with claims currently pending in 47 separate cases filed in Birmingham. The plaintiffs asked for several million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages, alleging that they were exposed to PCBs released from a manufacturing facility in Anniston, Alabama. Between 1935 and 1971, the facility manufactured PCBs. The facility was owned by the Monsanto Company until 1997 when Monsanto Company transferred the facility to Solutia Inc. Monsanto Company, Pharmacia Corporation and Upjohn subsequently merged to form Pharmacia. Pharmacia is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer. Buddy Cox and Kevin Clark were members of the trial team that included lawyers from other firms in Birmingham and St. Louis.
DYKEMA TEAM PREVAILS WITH LARGEST PLAINTIFF VERDICT IN OAKLAND COUNTY HISTORY Jury Awards $47.7 Million in Lawsuit Against Tier-One Supplier Members of Dykema's elite Automotive Industry Team, led by Jim Feeney, with Tom Murray and Jeffrey Miller, won a $47.7M verdict for Chrysler LLC in a breach of contract action against Hutchinson FTS, a designer and manufacturer of liquid heating and cooling lines for motor vehicles. Chrysler sued the Troy-based supplier to recover damages related to warranty costs and two separate recalls on parts Hutchinson provided.
"This is an extremely important decision as it comes during a crucial period for automakers and the industry's supply-chain," said Feeney. "In what may be the largest verdict in Oakland County history, we are very pleased that the jury ruled in our favor and found the defendant to be responsible for these damages."
Hutchinson provided hoses and cooling lines used in 2005 RS minivans that were recalled due to leaks in those parts. The problems surfaced in the first-model year of the van's fold-in-floor seat arrangement and was corrected by Chrysler in 2005-2006.
Chrysler and Dykema argued that Hutchinson had provided the defective parts, and thus became the cause of the recalls. Hutchinson countered, denying that the parts they provided were defective.
Citing the reasonableness of Chrysler's actions, an Oakland County jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff and awarded them nearly $47.7 million. Chrysler had sought reimbursement for all recalls and repairs made on defective parts supplied by Hutchinson.
-----
And this from:
Dykema Wins $47.7 Million Jury Verdict for Chrysler in Precedent-Setting Dispute with Parts Manufacturer By Ben Hallman April 17, 2009
It's going to take more than a damages award in a dispute with a supplier to save Chrysler’s bacon, but when you are an embattled automaker under government orders to merge with Fiat or file for bankruptcy, every $47.7 million counts.
In 2007, back when the U.S. auto industry was merely in serious trouble, Chrysler sued Hutchinson FTS, a parts supplier, over faulty hoses and aluminum cooling tubes redesigned by Hutchinson for the new 2005 RS series of Chrysler minivans. (Minivan aficionados out there--you know who you are--might recall that this was the first minivan designed to allow the seats in the back to fold into the floor, the heavily marketed "stow and go" feature.) Chrysler had to spend $80 million to replace the faulty hoses and tubes in 425,000 minivans. The car company, represented by Dykema, claimed in a Michigan state court complaint that Hutchinson was responsible for some of the cost.
Here's where it gets interesting, according to Dykema's James Feeney, who led the case for Chrysler. It was once nearly impossible for car companies to force a supplier to pay recall and repair costs. Suppliers would simply deny responsibility and claim that the car company should have detected the problem during testing. But in 2002, following Toyota's lead, Chrysler had Hutchinson and other suppliers sign a nonbinding agreement that gave cost-sharing guidelines in the event of a dispute like this. The Hutchinson case marked the first time the guidelines had come into play during litigation.
The result: After a ten-day trial, a jury in Oakland County, Mich., decided in favor of Chrysler. The jury ordered Hutchinson to pay 80 percent of the repair and replacement costs for the faulty hoses and tubes--the exact percentage set out in the nonbinding guidelines. The decision, Feeney told us, will force parts suppliers to take notice. "When the supplier community understands what happened here it will cause a ripple effect," he said.
Feeney said that Chrysler tried to keep its presentation to the jury simple, presenting what he described as a less academic theory of why the parts were faulty than Hutchinson. "Our photographs and parts contradicted their lab tests," he said. Chrysler argued that Hutchinson made changes to a part during a redesign, that those changes caused the leak, and that under the terms of the deal, the supplier was responsible for reimbursing Chrysler for much of the cost of fixing the problem. (Hutchinson was represented by Thomas Kilbane of Squire Sanders, who declined our request for comment.)
Feeney told us he was worried about whether jurors might have secret biases against Chrysler, given the company's economic condition. Parts suppliers also provide a big source of employment in Oakland County. But in the end, jurors needed only seven hours to find in Chrysler's favor.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
NIXON PEABODY TEAM WINS 'KEY' VICTORY UPHOLDING DISMISSAL OF CLASS ACTION ATTEMPT The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a decision that safeguards a Nixon Peabody client from a putative national class action. The underlying dispute centered around the interpretation of an insurance provision in an equipment lease agreement, which required that lessee maintain sufficient property and liability insurance coverage for the equipment. The provision provided that, in the event the lessee failed to obtain the necessary coverage, Key Equipment Finance, the client, could step in and obtain the coverage "at lessee’s expense."
The plaintiff, a doctor who leased medical equipment from Key Equipment Finance and failed to obtain his own coverage, claimed that Key Equipment had wrongfully overcharged him and other lessees for providing the insurance coverage. In order to recover the funds collected pursuant to the insurance provision, the plaintiff filed an action. The plaintiff asserted myriad causes of action, including breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and violations of multiple state consumer protection statutes.
Scott O'Connell, leader of the Litigation department's cross-practice Class Action Team, and former NP associate Paul Lanagan initially convinced the court to enforce the forum selection clause and transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The Utah court then granted the first motion to dismiss, dismissing all of plaintiff's claims with prejudice, except for the breach of contract and breach of covenant claims for which the court granted plaintiff leave to amend. After the plaintiff submitted an amended complaint, they moved to dismiss the two remaining claims. Motions were again granted with prejudice. Network firm Snell & Wilmer served as local counsel.
On appeal, Scott and Manchester financial services and securities litigation associate Dan Deane argued that the Utah court had conducted the correct analysis. Because plaintiff had conceded that the lease agreement was unambiguous, and he had not alleged any course of dealing that would bear on an interpretation of the agreement, his claims depended entirely on the plain language of the insurance provision. That language merely provided, however, that Key Equipment could obtain insurance “at lessee’s expense,” and did not explicitly impose any limitations on how that expense should be calculated. The 10th Circuit agreed, unanimously affirming the District Court’s decision without requiring oral argument.
Fellowship in the College is extended by invitation, after careful investigation, to experienced trial lawyers who have mastered the art of advocacy and whose professional careers have been marked by ethical conduct, professionalism, civility, and collegiality. Lawyers must have a minimum of 15 years of trial experience before they can be considered for Fellowship.
O'Neill has had an active trial practice for more than 23 years. He represents major corporate defendants as regional and national trial counsel, particularly in "pattern" tort litigation, and has tried cases to verdict in numerous federal and state courts around the country. O'Neill is a member of the firm's Executive Committee. He is an alumnus of the Arizona State University School of Law from which he graduated cum laude in 1985.
There are 65 attorneys in the 23 member firms of the Network of Trial Law firms who are members of the American College of Trial Lawyers:
Akerman Senterfitt * J. Thomas Cardwell Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.P. * Blake Tartt Bingham McCutchen LLP * John J. Curtin, Jr. * Francis H. Fox * Joseph L. Kociubes * Joseph T. McLaughlin * James L. Hunt * Loyd W. McCormick * Donn P. Pickett * Norman B. Richards Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP * Donald J. M. Brown, Q.C. * Neil Finkelstein * Paul B. Schabas Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner & Preece LLP * Kelly Corr * William F. Cronin * William R. Squires, III Dykema Gossett * James P. Feeney * Stephen Sward * Thomas R. Hill * Richard G. Schultz Gibbons P.C. * John T. Dolan * Michael R. Griffinger * Lawrence S. Lustberg * Herman D. Michels Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP * Donald L. DeVries, Jr. * Craig B. Merkle * Susan T. Preston LeClair Ryan, A Professional Corporation * Everette G. Allen, Jr. Lightfoot, Franklin & White, L.L.C. * Samuel H. Franklin * M. Christian King * Warren B. Lightfoot * Harlan I. Prater, IV * Jere F. White, Jr. Nixon Peabody LLP * John B. McCrory * Fredric C. Nelson * Graydon S. Staring * Robert C. Bernius Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, P.C. * Kenneth W. Bean Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. * William S. O'Hare, Jr. * Timothy G. O'Neill * John J. Bouma * Vaughn A. Crawford * Paul J. Giancola * Warren Earl Platt * Alan L. Sullivan Thompson Hine LLP * Richard E. Guster * Jacob K. Stein * S. Stuart Eilers * Daniel W. Hammer * David J. Hooker * Elizabeth B. Wright Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, L.L.C. * Terry C. Sullivan * Robert G. Tanner * Ben L. Weinberg, Jr. * Sidney F. Wheeler Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP * Hugh Q. Gottschalk * Kevin J. Kuhn * Michael L. O'Donnell * John R. Trigg * Malcolm E. Wheeler Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP * Thomas D. Allen * James P. Dorr * Jerald P. Esrick * Bernard Harrold * Max Wildman
Friday, March 27, 2009
THE NETWORK OF TRIAL LAW FIRMS' LITIGATION MANAGEMENT SUPERCOURSE "UNCORKING LITIGATION MANAGEMENT EXPERTISE" April 23-26, 2009 In-house general counsel and senior litigation managers will attend two days of cutting-edge litigation management CLE provided by The Network of Trial Law Firms next month at our 46th Litigation Management Supercourse. This Spring's program will take place at the Silverado Resort in Napa Valley, California.
Comments from past attendees include: "Excellent presentations. The 20-minute time frame keeps them substantive, tight and to the point. The morning just flew -- yesterday and today." "Excellent panel!!" "A very good program. Every presentation was top-notch. The level of expertise is highly impressive." "Excellent panel on counsel selection." "Very insightful comments from all your speakers in fast-moving format." "The class action presentation was first rate." "Very good program and speakers." "Another great program - lots of useful information in an entertaining style." "Technology was terrific - even better than before." "Written materials on CD is also very helpful." "Counsel selection panel was a great session. Excellent break-out session on litigation management. Chairs did a great job." "Excellent day of CLE. Very informative and interesting. Quite a lot of information that will be useful in my practice for my employer." "Excellent topics and presentations as usual. It's good to be back." "Best presentation I've seen in e-discovery." "A very good collection of presentations -- Thank You!" "Panel discussion on partnership management of important litigation was superlative - I wanted more." "Hope to see more in the future."
Network chair, Warren Platt, a senior litigation partner at Snell & wilmer in Orange County, CA, said "this program continues the Network's 16-year history of delivering highly entertaining cutting-edge CLE programming in the litigation management area."
Tony White, Network vice chair, and a senior litigation partner at Thompson Hine in Ohio, noted that the topics are varied, focused and decidedly to-the-point, each speaker limited to 20 minutes. "If a trial lawyer can't make his/her point in that time, he/she ought to consider another field."
Long ago the Network moved to concise rapid-fire speaking slots accompanied by heavy use of demonstratives and PowerPoint slides to get a lot of information across in a limited time.
Attorneys interested in attending are invited to contact any attorney at one of our 23 (soon to be 24) member law firms, or contact Ellis Mirsky, General Counsel and Executive Director of the Network.
For the agenda, speakers and other details, see the Network's website.
In early December, a few weeks before Brock Gibson took up the reins as chair of 550-lawyer Blake, Cassels & Graydon, he got a call from a longtime client, Calgary-based oil conglomerate Suncor Energy Inc.
Suncor's general counsel Terry Hopwood told Gibson that the company had initiated merger talks with rival Petro-Canada. Both companies are major players in the oil-rich sands of northwestern Canada, and a Petro-Canada takeover has long been the subject of speculation. A union of the two would create the largest Canadian oil and gas conglomerate by capitalization.
Gibson, 49, who has represented the company for securities work for more than a dozen years, had little choice but to set aside some management duties as merger talks ramped up through the late winter. On March 11, Gibson was working at Blake's New York office when he got another call from Hopwood. The deal was going into hyperdrive and he was needed back in Calgray as an agreement needed to be signed in ten days. "I have a new big important client called the firm," he notes, chuckling. "And I also have a big important client called Suncor. It can be a little tricky when they both call at the same time."
Gibson immediately flew back to Calgary, where he quickly mobilized his team, which was on alert. The matter was bigger, more complex, and more politically sensitive than any recent deals Brock could recall‹in fact, the largest oil and gas deal in the country since January 2007. Ultimately, some 150 lawyers and business-side advisors worked on the deal.
Unlike others, it also had to conform to a law specifically enacted to limit concentration of control in Petro-Canada, a onetime crown jewel among the country's nationalized industries (it was privatized in 1991). The law, which restricts stock ownership of any party to under 20 percent, has long been viewed by analysts as a drag on Petro-Canada's share price.
A critical concern for both parties was preserving secrecy. "The energy sector in Calgary is very concentrated," Gibson notes. "It wouldn't have taken much to start speculation on a deal." Gibson and the team from MacLeod Dixon representing Petro-Canada arranged meetings in a series of quiet venues. On days of important meetings, they had top executives and lawyers arrive in ones and twos in order to slide below the rumor-mill radar.
Ultimately, Brock and his counterpart at MacLeod Dixon, Robert Engbloom, were able to keep the deal under wraps until last Sunday night, when the ink was still drying on the agreement. "That was no small accomplishment," says Hopwood.
The parties ultimately settled on is what Canadian law terms an amalgamation, which is akin to a merger. As the two parties are merged and no shareholder ends up with more than 20 percent ownership, the transaction complies with the ownership rules.
Under the terms the all-stock deal announced Monday, both companies' shareholders will receive shares in the amalgamated entity. PetroCanada's shareholders will receive 1.28 shares of a new company, to be known as Suncor. Suncor shareholders will receive one-to-one shares of the new company.
There are still some major hoops to jump through. The amalgamation is being completed under a statutory plan of arrangement, which must be approved by a court. Final court approval is contingent on shareholder and regulatory approvals. And there's the rub: lawyers say the deal is likely to be a test case for a new, U.S.-style antitrust review provisions enacted last year. Under the new law, Canadian companies seeking to merge may be subject to the intensive and expensive antitrust regulatory scrutiny known as a "second request" that their U.S. counterparts have long had to submit to. That could delay a close. "I would fully expect they'd do a second request," notes Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg's George Addy, a former head of Canada's Competition Bureau. Frankly everyone does."
Even with the remaining hoops to go through, Gibson--who is splitting his time between his home in Calgary and an apartment in Toronto, where the firm has its largest office-- may be finally able to get back to his other pressing business: managing the firm. At least until the next big client comes knocking.
In October, 2008, a jury awarded damages of $4.6 million to Joyal, which Judge Pisano raised to $16.3 million, which includes attorneys’ fees of $1.6 million. In addition, Judge Pisano ordered Johnson Electric to pay an ongoing royalty to Joyal equal to 26 percent of Johnson’s gross sales revenues from sales of infringing motor armatures, whose patents are held by Joyal.
Joyal, founded in Newark in 1947, manufactured sophisticated electro-mechanical machines for companies including General Electric, Maytag, Ford Motor Company and Johnson Electric. Although the company sold its business gradually in the '90s, it retained critical patents, including one involving methods for making fuel pump motors that are placed inside gasoline tanks, which was infringed by Johnson.
Johnson Electric is a Hong Kong-based conglomerate whose revenue grew from $670 million to $2.2 billion between 2000 and 2008. After acquiring machines from Joyal, Johnson started manufacturing clone machines that practiced the method of the Joyal patent. Days before the trial Johnson withdrew its defense that there were any non-infringing alternatives available.
FEDEX LAWYER (KELLY CORR OF CORR, CRONIN, MICHELSON, BAUMGARDNER & PREECE) SAYS CONTRACT DRIVERS SHOULD HAVE KNOWN JOB TERMS Laurence Viele Davidson and Brad Broberg Bloomberg News (Article Link) FedEx Corp.'s contract ground drivers, who claim the company is denying them overtime pay and treating them like full-time workers, agreed to the terms of the job when they signed up, a lawyer told a Washington state jury.
"The bottom line is, I don't think there was a gun to their head," Kelly Corr said today during opening statements in Seattle state court. "There was no bait and switch."
More than 320 contract ground drivers at FedEx, the second-biggest package delivery company in the U.S., are suing in a class-action, or group, lawsuit, demanding to be paid for overtime at 1 1/2 times their regular pay. They also seek reimbursement for uniforms.
The plaintiffs owned so-called single-routes, and their lawyer Rebecca Roe said yesterday the drivers had no control over delivery prices, their schedules, the look of their vehicles or the uniforms they're required to wear.
The workers should have known what the job entailed when they signed an operating agreement, Corr said, as he concluded his opening statement which he began yesterday.
"There was an opportunity for them to do due diligence," he said.
Contracting out the delivery routes probably gives FedEx a cost advantage of more than 30 percent over United Parcel Service Inc., the world’s biggest package-delivery company, Marick Masters, a business professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said last year in reference to a similar suit in Indiana. UPS's drivers are represented by the Teamsters union.
Caveat Laboris The nationwide class-action suit against FedEx in federal court in South Bend, Indiana, includes former and current ground delivery workers. Those drivers similarly claim the Memphis-based delivery company treats them as full-time workers, except for pay and benefits. The company denied the allegations.
FedEx settled a case in California state court that was similar to the Seattle lawsuit. FedEx paid $26.8 million to the 203 contractors and their lawyers last year.
The U.S. Internal Revenue Service issued and then retracted a preliminary assessment of $319 million in taxes against FedEx for misclassifying the drivers as contractors in 2002 for tax purposes. The IRS continues to probe the 2002 classification as well as that from 2004 to 2006.
Judge John Erlick is presiding over the case in King County Superior Court in Seattle and said yesterday the trial will last about a month.
FedEx shares rose $2.50, or 6.3 percent, to $42.58 at 4:15 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.
The Seattle case is Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc., 04-2-39981, Superior Court of Washington, King County (Seattle). The Indiana case is In re FedEx Ground Package System Inc. Employment Practices Litigation, 3:05-md-00527, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana (South Bend).
Monday, March 16, 2009
WHEELER TRIGG KENNEDY LAWYERS TOP COLORADO SUPER LAWYERS LIST AGAIN Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP is proud to announce that 10 of its 24 partners have been selected as Colorado Super Lawyers® for 2009. Two are on the top 10 list and an additional two are among the top 50. Since 2007, four WTK lawyers have been among the top 10 lawyers listed, including Michael O'Donnell and Malcolm Wheeler, both of whom are on the top 10 list for the second time this year. Hugh Gottschalk and Kevin Kuhn are among the top 50 this year and have been on the top 10 list previously.
According to Law & Politics which publishes Super Lawyers lists in every state, "only the top five percent of the lawyers in the state are named Super Lawyers." The 2009 list was published recently in Colorado Super Lawyers magazine and the April issue of 5280 magazine.
The WTK lawyers named to Colorado Super Lawyers 2009 and the practice areas in which they are listed appear below.
In addition, the nine Wheeler Trigg Kennedy lawyers listed below have been named to the inaugural list of Colorado Rising Stars® 2009, also published by Law & Politics.
DEUTSCH KERRIGAN & STILES WINS VICTORY IN TRUCK-ACCIDENT PERSONAL INJURY CASE THAT LEADS TO SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEY David Groome of Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles handled the defense of a personal injury case (Eric Rojas, et al. v Hwy-Tech, Inc. et al.) which led not only to the client defendant paying no money to settle this matter, but in the Court sanctioning both plaintiffs and their attorney. Both plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their suit with prejudice in exchange for defendants not pursuing the money judgment against them. The plaintiff's attorney who had withdrawn and filed an intervention in the suit paid his share of the judgment to the client in order to bring the entire misadventure to an end.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
TRIAL.COM LITIGATION MANAGEMENT PODCASTS NOW AVAILABLE ON ITUNES The Network of Trial Law Firms is proud to announce the launch of our Litigation Management Podcasts available on iTunes for your iPod or iPhone. If you already have Apple's iTunes installed on your computer, you may visit this link to view and subscribe to our free podcast directory.
The podcasts, so far, consist of the SkyRadio interview of Warren Platt, the 2008-2009 Chair of the Network of Trial Law Firms, and audio files from each presentation at our last SuperCourse "ROCK-SOLID Litigation Management" held at The Boulders Resort and Golden Door Spa last October. Additional tracks from past programs will be added in the next month or two as well as tracks from all future programs shortly after they conclude.
Those without iTunes can listen or download the podcasts from the TRIAL.COM website by clicking on "Podcasts" in the menu bar or by adding the RSS Feed (http://www.trial.com/podcasts/tcpodcast.xml) to their Microsoft Outlook or favorite newsreader (My Yahoo!, Google Reader, NewsGator, etc.)
These podcasts are for information/entertainment purposes only and are not eligible for continuing legal education (CLE) credit in any state. For CLE credit, TRIAL.COM offers Online CLE courses through streaming video with materials for no charge to in-house counsel.
Friday, February 13, 2009
DYKEMA ATTORNEYS HONORED AS CLIENT SERVICE ALL-STARS The Network's Michigan member firm, Dykema, a leading national law firm, recently announced that two members of the firm’s Litigation Department, Susan Artinian and Daniel Stephenson, have been named to the BTI Consulting Group’s Client Service All-Star Team for Law Firms 2009. This elite list honors a select group of attorneys who were identified by clients for having delivered superior client service to Fortune 1000 clients.
According to BTI, the 176 members of the Client Service All Star Team helped to drive client satisfaction among large corporations to its highest point in five years. Dykema is one of just 25 firms in the nation to have two attorneys recognized and is on a prestigious list that includes Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Latham & Watkins, Jones Day, Sidley Austin, Kirkland & Ellis and Mayer Brown.
"Amid the economic turmoil in 2008, Susan and Dan have shown the ability to deliver service in a way that adds more value to the client relationship," said Rex Schlaybaugh, Dykema’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. "We are proud of Dan and Susan for their outstanding client service performance and congratulate them on this tremendous honor."
BTI is a leading provider of strategic market research to law firms and professional services firms. They conduct private benchmarking, market awareness and client satisfaction research for some of the best-run organizations in the world. BTI recently conducted hundreds of individual interviews with corporate counsel at Fortune 1000 and large organizations as part of their goal to probe clients on different aspects of their relationships with law firms, including needs and priorities, the law firms they rely on, and the quality of service they receive.
Artinian has 28 years of experience in medical device and pharmaceutical, commercial and employment litigation defense on behalf of clients from a broad cross-section of industries, including drug and medical device manufacturers, retail and automotive. She currently serves as National Science and Expert Counsel for the Bayer Corporation in two major mass tort situations and has held a national role in previous mass tort litigation for the company. A resident of Grosse Pointe Park, Artinian received a B.S. and M.A. from the University of Michigan and a J.D., cum laude, from the University of Detroit.
Stephenson, a trial lawyer and member of the firm’s Executive Board, focuses his litigation practice on the defense of companies in the pharmaceutical, medical device and aviation industries. His mechanical engineering degree, with an emphasis on aeronautical engineering, gives him the insight to thoroughly assess the technology aspects of aviation-related legal disputes, some of which relate to airplane and helicopter disasters. A resident of Ann Arbor, Mr. Stephenson earned a B.S.M.E. from the University of California, Los Angeles and a J.D. from the University of Michigan.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
WEINBERG WHEELEER RECEIVES DEFENSE VERDICT IN HOUSEBOAT SUIT Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC ("WWHGD") partner, Kevin Williams, received a defense verdict for his client in a case stemming from a May 2000 death on a houseboat in Georgia. The victim allegedly died from a drowning caused by disorientation due to carbon monoxide poisoning. Testing revealed the deceased had a CO level of 22% in his blood, which was reported as a toxic level.
The Estate of the deceased, Joel D. Martin, filed a product liability suit against Sumerset Custom Houseboats, Inc. in the U.S. District Court - Middle District of Georgia claiming that the product was defectively designed because the engine placement allowed for CO to accumulate under the rear of the boat and that there were inadequate safety warnings from the manufacturer about the dangers of CO. Mr. Martin drowned as he was trying to remove the boat’s anchor that had become stuck under water. It was not until the Plaintiff viewed a segment by “48 Hours” on CO in houseboats that they chose to file suit. This 48 Hours Show documented the dangers of CO on houseboats and was called, “The Silent Killer.” The Plaintiff’s attorneys, Boone & Stone, alleged that the CO that had accumulated in Mr. Martin’s body caused him to become disoriented under water thus leading to his drowning. The defense, lead by Kevin Williams of WWHGD, asserted that the boat had been used for a year before the drowning and a year after without an incident. There were opposing experts for both sides on the defect issue and the effect of 22% CO in the blood.
The jury reached a defense verdict in 20 minutes after a 2 ˝ week trial. The Plaintiffs demand before trial was $2.3 million and they rejected a $300,000 settlement offer.
Friday, February 06, 2009
LEE ROBERTS ELECTED TO NEVADA LAW FOUNDATION Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC ("WWHGD") partner, D. Lee Roberts, Jr., has been elected a Colleague of the Nevada Law Foundation. Colleagueship in the Foundation is a professional honor extended only to the leading lawyers and judges of Nevada who have demonstrated outstanding legal ability and who are recognized for their devotion to both their profession and the community. Out of over 10,000 current and former members of the State Bar of Nevada, Mr. Roberts is now one of only 121 lawyers and judges who have been recognized as a Lifetime Colleague since the program was founded in 1994.
The primary goal of the Nevada Law Foundation is to develop and maintain programs that provide legal-related services to the poor, to victims of domestic violence, and to children in need of protection by the juvenile court. Clark County Legal Services and other organizations supported by the foundation provide quality legal services in civil legal matters for low-income individuals and groups. The Committee to Aid Abused Women uses grant monies from the foundation to ensure that the survivors of domestic violence have access to the life-saving legal services of temporary protection and related orders. Another of the foundation's grantees, S.A.F.E. House, runs a multi-faceted program that provides system and legal advocacy while assisting domestic violence victims in their attempts to create safe and abuse-free lives for themselves and their children. Every day, these organizations make a positive difference in the lives of countless Nevadans, and Mr. Roberts is proud to support the foundation in its worthwhile efforts.
Mr. Roberts practices in WWHGD’s Las Vegas office, and has over 22 years of trial experience. He concentrates his practice in construction, catastrophic tort and contract litigation. Mr. Roberts’ legal expertise has also been recognized through Super Lawyers and Chambers USA’s annual listing of “America’s Leading Business Lawyers.” He is a frequent speaker at various educational and legal seminars.
AKERMAN SENTERFITT TEAM SCORES BIG WIN IN PRODUCTS LIABILITY "AUTISM DAMAGES" CLAIM Timothy J. McDermott, Ryan R. Fuller and Heather M. Solanka of Akerman Senterfitt, representing a manufacturer of an infant child restraint, were successful in both their Daubert Motion To Exclude Plaintiffs’ Medical Experts, Edward Hoffman, M.D. and David M. Suhrbier, D.O., and in their companion Motion for Summary Judgment on the "autism claim" being advanced by those experts in the case. After having considered the very extensive briefing and evidentiary submissions of the parties, and after conducting a full day hearing to the foregoing and additional Daubert motions, Judge Casey Rogers granted the defense motions, including partial summary judgment. The Court ruled that the Plaintiffs’ medical experts would "not be permitted to offer any opinion that the accident in this case was a contributing factor in [the infant Plaintiff’s] Autism Spectrum Disorder", and further ruling that “the autism causation theory of [Plaintiffs’] experts Edward Hoffman and David Suhrbier, is not scientifically reliable and therefore will not be admissible at trial”.
The Plaintiff, a single mother of five children, had alleged that the infant car seat product failed in the very low-speed motor vehicle accident in question, resulting in alleged brain injury to her 15-day-old infant son which, in turn, allegedly caused his subsequently-diagnosed autism. In a Memorandum Opinion entered on January 28, 2009, Judge Rogers expanded on the underlying basis for her rulings, stating that the Plaintiffs’ medical experts had utilized faulty methodology (including their attempt to rely upon a claimed “differential diagnosis” methodology) in reaching their causation conclusions, and that their opinion that the infant’s autism stemmed from a brain injury suffered during the accident, “is not based on reliable, scientific reasoning”. Judge Rogers also accepted the defense arguments advanced by Mr. McDermott at the hearing that the various “scientific studies” relied upon by Plaintiffs’ experts were either medically irrelevant as applied to the brain injuries allegedly suffered by the infant Plaintiff, or were not otherwise scientifically reliable under Daubert to support the proposition that brain injury in a newborn infant can cause autism. The case is notable in that it appears to be the first case where a plaintiff has advanced the theory that “traumatic brain injury” can cause autism.
The Plaintiffs (who immediately dismissed their remaining, lesser damage claims) have appealed the Court’s Final Judgment entered against them to 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Akerman’s client has a motion pending for an award of substantial attorneys’ fees and costs based upon a rejected Proposal for Settlement extended to the Plaintiffs early in the litigation.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
SIX SUPER LAWYERS AGAIN AT CORR CRONIN Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner & Preece is pleased to announce that once again six of its lawyers have been chosen by their peers as "Super Lawyers." Kelly Corr, Bill Cronin, Guy Michelson, Kevin Baumgardner, Josh Preece and Randy Squires were each selected for 2009. Fewer than five percent of the state's lawyers receive this recognition. Once again, both Kelly and Bill were also picked among the "Top 100" lawyers for the state and for the fifth time, Kelly was voted as one of the "Top Ten" lawyers in the state. More than 27,000 lawyers practice in Washington.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
THOMPSON HINE TEAM THROWS OUT PLAINTIFF'S CONSPRIACY EXPERT On January 12, 2009, in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in Cleveland, Timothy Coughlin, Thomas Feher and Andrea Daloia of Thompson Hine, representing Goodrich Corporation, were successful in obtaining a Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Conspiracy Expert, Professor Gerald Markowitz. After extensive briefing and Rule 104 hearings, Justice Francis E. Sweeney found that the plaintiff’s claimed “conspiracy” expert's opinions as to the alleged conspiratorial actions and motives of “the vinyl industry” were to be excluded. Judge Sweeney excluded the testimony because it fell within the province of the jurors, and it was an improper attempt to introduce expert opinion as to the intent and motive of defendants.
The plaintiff had alleged that her decedent husband contracted hepatic angiosarcoma, a form of liver cancer, as a result of his occupational exposure to vinyl chloride monomer between 1955 and 1974, while employed at a polyvinyl chloride (“PVC”) manufacturing facility. In addition, the plaintiff claimed a conspiracy, among vinyl chloride manufacturers and users, to withhold and mischaracterize scientific data relating to health risks of vinyl chloride. The court found that Professor Markowitz's “expertise,” limited purely to his interpretation of the documents produced in litigation and provided by plaintiffs' counsel, invaded the responsibility of the jury. The court also found that Professor Markowitz held no scientific expertise and was not qualified to testify as to the state of the art of the evolving science. In addition, the court found that Professor Markowitz's opinions related to “scholarly arguments” for the rationale, intent and motive of various entities was more appropriately the task of counsel in argument rather than be given from the expert witness stand.
The court also excluded, in part, the plaintiff's industrial hygienist's opinions. Mr. James Jones’ exposure estimates were unreliable and based in no part upon any evidence relating to the specific exposure that the decedent may have seen.
Friday, January 16, 2009
GOODELL DEVRIES "TOPS" AMONG MARYLAND SUPER LAWYERS FOR 2009
The Maryland Super Lawyer honors Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP attorneys as 'Tops' for a third consecutive year as ranked by attorney peers. Donald L. DeVries, Jr. continues to earn a prestigious ranking as one of the Top 10 Super Lawyers in Maryland (2007, 2008, 2009); Susan T. Preston also repeats an earned rank as a Top 10 Super Lawyer in Maryland (2008, 2009), a Top 50 Super Lawyer in Maryland (2007, 2008, 2009) and one of Maryland’s Top 25 Women attorneys (2007, 2008, 2009); and Managing Partner, Linda S. Woolf, earns a third consecutive ranking as one of the Top 25 Women Lawyers in Maryland (2007, 2008, 2009) and is also recognized as one of the Top 50 Super Lawyers in Maryland.
The Wheeler Trigg Kennedy family of legal professionals mourns the loss of Mark Kennedy, one of the firm's founders. An avid skier, Mark died this past weekend while skiing in Canada.
Mark shared his love of skiing by supporting charities such as Snowboard Outreach Society, which works to develop positive self-images and values in at-risk youth through snow sports instruction. An animal lover with two dogs of his own, Mark also regularly contributed to the Denver Dumb Friends League (an animal shelter). He financially supported his alma maters, the Hawken School of Gates Mills, Ohio, Case Western Reserve University, and Syracuse University College of Law.
Mark's professional accomplishments included recognition by Chambers USA as a top national franchise lawyer, repeated recognition as a "super lawyer," and long-standing assignments as national and regional trial counsel for major automobile manufacturing companies. Mark was a tireless professional who led WTK's franchise litigation group since the firm was established.
Mark will be missed, but his legacy will live on in the strong litigation franchise team that he developed and led at WTK.
Contributions in Mark's memory may be made to the Wheeler Trigg Kennedy Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization, in care of Connie Proulx, Executive Director, WTK Foundation, 1801 California Street, Suite 3600, Denver, CO 80202. Donations will be used for projects that Mark supported through the Foundation, such as those involving animal welfare and the mastery of snow sports by at-risk youth.
Funeral will be Saturday, January 17, 10:30 a.m. at Horan McConaty Funeral Home, 1091 South Colorado Blvd., Denver, Colorado.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
GRUPO TELEVISA VS. UNIVISION: BINGHAM McCUTCHEN'S MARSHALL GROSSMAN IN A MEXICAN STANDOFF Brian Baxter -- The AmLawDaily -- January 6, 2009 A trial that could change the face of Hispanic television got underway in U.S. district court in Los Angeles on Tuesday as Grupo Televisa, Mexico's largest media company, pressed its claims for over $100 million in damages from Univision, the leading Spanish-language broadcaster in the U.S.
Filed in May 2005, the suit claims that Univision is unfairly profiting from a 16-year-old programming agreement that grants the network exclusive rights to air Grupo Televisa's enormously popular telenovelas--Spanish-language soap operas, but much more entertaining--in the U.S.
Represented by chief trial counsel Marshall Grossman of Bingham McCutchen, Grupo Televisa is seeking $118 million in damages for additional licensing fees and ad revenue from Univision.
Grupo Televisa has since raised the litigation stakes by claiming that Univision's alleged unfair conduct should allow Grupo Televisa to be released from the programming agreement that it signed with the New York-based network in 1992.
If a Los Angeles jury agrees to terminate the programming agreement, Grupo Televisa could shop its steamy telenovelas to competing Spanish-language networks like Hialeha, Fla.-based Telemundo, a subsidiary of NBC Universal and General Electric. That would be a potentially devastating outcome for Univision, which already is saddled with debt stemming from its 2006 takeover.
Univision is being advised by longtime outside counsel Ronald Olson of Munger, Tolles & Olson. But facing a potential bet-the-company case, the broadcaster has turned to star litigator John Keker of San Francisco litigation boutique Keker & Van Nest as trial counsel. Assisting Keker at trial: Keker & Van Nest partners Elliot Peters, Susan Harriman, and R. James Slaughter.
Keker's opponent in the Grupo Televisa-Univision royalties dispute, noted L.A. litigation heavyweight Grossman, is no slouch himself. The Nebraska native told The Recorder in May 2007 that his book of business was roughly $15 million. (Grossman was finalizing a merger of his 40-lawyer L.A. litigation shop Alschuler Grossman with Bingham at the time.)
Along with fellow Bingham partners Stacy Harrison and Jonathan Loeb, Grossman is receiving assistance from Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. The firm's representation of Grupo Televisa on corporate transactional and litigation matters began three years ago. Name partner Herb Wachtell, litigation partner Jonathan Moses, and litigation counsel Andrew Cheung are representing Grupo Televisa in several related actions against Univision.
In December Wachtell secured a victory for Grupo Televisa in a private judge proceeding in state court in California relating to soccer games shown on Univision. A separate bench trial over whether Grupo Televisa retains Internet rights to aired programs under its licensing agreement is slated for a bench trial in March.
THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL INTERVIEWS BLAKES' MICHAEL GANS ON WEIGHING THE IMPACT OF CANADA'S GROUND-BREAKING "BELL" RULING Vesna Jaksic / The National Law Journal / December 23, 2008 The Supreme Court of Canada on Dec. 19 released the reasons behind its June decision to allow a $42 billion (C$52 billion) acquisition of Montreal-based BCE Inc., or Bell Canada Enterprises, Canada's biggest telecommunications company and the owner of Bell Canada. While the deal — the world's biggest leveraged buyout at the time — has collapsed since, because BCE did not meet a solvency test required for the buyout, the court decision is still considered precedent regarding the duties of boards of directors.
In its 80-page decision, the court said that the directors' duty is to the corporation, not to stakeholders, and that stakeholders' reasonable expectation is simply that the directors act in the best interest of the corporation.
The National Law Journal talked to Michael Gans, a New York-based lawyer at Blake, Cassels & Graydon, a Canadian law firm. Gans is co-founder of the firm's New York office and co-head of the firm's private equity group. The NLJ asked Gans about the court decision in the case, which he has been following for months.
NLJ: What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision?
MG: I think this judgment is consistent with what corporate lawyers in Canada expected, and I think it's well reasoned. I think the case is good news for corporate Canada in that it does affirm that corporate directors will be given broad room by the courts to exercise judgment as long as that judgment is reasonable and informed.
NLJ: How does the Canadian decision regarding directors' duties compare to what the U.S. courts have ruled?
MG: As most corporate lawyers would have probably expected, this judgment affirms that Canadian law is different than U.S. law in that value maximization and interests of the stakeholders are not necessarily paramount for Canadian directors; rather, their obligation is in the best interest of the corporation. Canadian boards have more leeway to consider all options and then undertake the path that's in the best interest of the corporation as a whole.
NLJ: What kind of impact will this decision have?
MG: This will be the paramount case on directors' duties. It provides greater certainty to corporate Canada in any kind of fundamental change scenario.
NLJ: Are there any parts of this decision you find particularly surprising or interesting?
MG: There are two things that as a corporate lawyer I find interesting. One is, the court gave a very clear analysis of the oppression remedy and specifically the factors that are used to determine whether a reasonable expectation of treatment on behalf of a stakeholder exists. Once you determine that a reasonable expectation exists, the second test is whether unfair or oppressive conduct has occurred.
The second was a clear distinction between how the oppression remedy and plan of arrangement approval works. For oppression, the court said you can look beyond the legal rights of stakeholders and to the economic impact of a decision. In contrast, in the plan of arrangement approval context, absent an exceptional circumstance, you just look to the legal rights of the stakeholder.
NLJ: Why do you think this case has been so closely watched on both sides of the border?
MG: BCE has over 600,000 shareholders. This is the largest leveraged buyout in history, not just Canadian history; there [are] tremendous dollars at stake, reputations at stake. It has very significant impact on corporate Canada.
FROM THIS WEEK'S ISSUE | A law firm sells itself by not really selling itself Lightfoot, Franklin & White is a law firm that is notable for what it lacks: a full-service marketing and business development department. The absence of a well-oiled and well-funded marketing machine doesn't seem to be slowing down the Birmingham, Ala.-based litigation firm, however. The 55-attorney shop receives unusually high marks from clients. -----
A law firm sells itself by not really selling itself Karen Sloan / Staff reporter December 22, 2008
Lightfoot, Franklin & White is a law firm that is notable for what it lacks: a full-service marketing and business development department.
The absence of a well-oiled and well-funded marketing machine doesn't seem to be slowing down the Birmingham, Ala.-based litigation firm, however.
The 55-attorney shop received unusually high marks on a recent client satisfaction survey.
"We have surveyed thousands of law firm clients over the past 15 years, and Lightfoot's overall client satisfaction scores were the highest we have seen," said Charles A. Maddock, the Altman Weil consultant who managed the survey.
Clients praised the firm's legal work, fee structure and reputation.
So what's Lightfoot's secret to keeping clients happy and expanding its business without employing a stable of marketers?
It is pretty simple, said managing partner Adam Peck. The firm sells itself primarily by not trying so hard to sell itself. Instead of beating the bushes looking for new clients, attorneys focus on their existing clients and rely primarily on referrals for new business.
"The practice of law has become so focused on business and is less focused on serving clients," Peck said. "It should be the other way around. It may sound trite, but our main marketing tool is taking care of the clients we have. It's the work on our desks."
Peck said the firm has long maintained a culture that revolves around client services instead of business generation.
For instance, the firm intentionally does not track which attorney brings in what client.
The strategy helps ensure that clients end up working with the most qualified attorney for their matter, rather than automatically working with the attorney who brought them to the firm.
Straight from school
Also, the firm rarely brings on lateral attorneys, preferring instead to hire students straight out of law school, said partner Lee Hollis, who heads the firm's marketing efforts. That enables the firm to train new attorneys with the idea that client satisfaction is a top priority.
"Our culture is to do excellent work. To go out and win the case. It's not to bill hours into the Stone Age," Hollis said.
That can mean taking on short-term matters that aren't likely to generate much income for the firm but will help strengthen Lightfoot's relationship with the client. Those solid relationships can translate into referrals, Hollis said.
Along with Hollis, the firm's marketing department consists of Ginger Ann Clark, who splits her time between marketing and recruiting. Hollis said that the marketing budget is "virtually zero," and that Lightfoot does very little marketing beyond sending holiday cards and new-attorney announcements to clients.
Lightfoot, which was founded in 1990, serves a wide variety of clients primarily in civil defense litigation. Though based in Alabama, only about 10% of the firm's billable hours come from in-state clients. Lightfoot counts a number of Fortune 100 companies among its client roster, Peck said.
Mike Walton is among the Lightfoot clients who have recommended the firm to others. Walton heads litigation matters at Paccar Inc., the parent company for the Kenworth and Peterbilt lines of commercial vehicles. Lightfoot has been handling Paccar's catastrophic litigation cases for about 10 years, he said.
"I've referred people to them," Walton said. "They're doing an excellent job. Like any company, we're concerned about cost, and they've been able to work with us on that."
Hollis said the firm expected to score well on the client satisfaction survey but also expected to receive some constructive criticism, as well.
The main criticism clients had, however, was that they wished the firm would take on more matters outside Alabama. Firm leaders said they see those comments as a positive sign for future expansion rather than as a real problem.
"It really surprised us how good the scores were," Hollis said. "We were kind of floored."
Law360, New York (December 17, 2008) -- In August 2008, the president signed into law the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (the “Improvement Act”).
This legislation, which in large part was a reaction to an avalanche of recalls of children’s products of the last several years (mostly imported from China and the Far East), had an immediate and dramatic effect on the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (“CPSC”) regulation of consumer products.
That dramatic effect is guaranteed to continue, as the CPSC rolls out specific rules that implement the Improvement Act.
To date, much of the media attention on the Improvement Act has focused on the effect the Act has on regulation of domestically manufactured and imported children’s products.
This is wholly warranted as the Improvement Act institutes sweeping changes which include lowering the requirements for permissible lead content of children’s goods, lowering permissible levels of lead permitted in paint and banning the use of certain plastic softeners or phthalates in children’s care items and toys.
Receiving less attention, though having no less potentially significant consequences and implications, are provisions of the Improvement Act which impact state regulation of consumer products.
Most significantly, the Improvement Act expands the jurisdiction of state attorneys general (“SAGs”) in regulating consumer products and taking action against manufacturers and distributors of products. Manufacturers, private labelers, importers and their insurers would do well to consider this aspect of the Improvement Act.
Under Section 218 of the Improvement Act, SAGs are now specifically authorized to commence suit in federal court alleging violation of any standard or rule promulgated by the Commission which affects a state’s residents.
In other words, state prosecutors are now armed with the ability to commence a suit for violation of applicable federal standards, regulations, rules and bans.
By enabling 50 SAGs to enforce standards and rules previously enforced solely by the CPSC, Congress has dramatically increased the resources available for the enforcement of consumer product rules, regulations and standards.
It has also created the potential for differing interpretation of product safety regulations and enforcement, depending on which agency commences an enforcement proceeding against a manufacturer and where.
Deputizing Of State Attorneys General
SAGs have long been active in the regulation of consumer products utilizing state consumer product statutes.
Recent examples include California AG actions to enforce state standards related to flammability of mattresses, and Illinois AG actions, in 2007, against Fisher-Price related to a toy blood pressure cuff. Nevertheless, these actions have been generally based on state laws and generally arose in a state court setting.
Section 218 of the Improvement Act changes things. Section 218 specifically provides that SAGs may commence suit in federal court to:
1. Stop the sale of products that allegedly violate safety standards administered by the CPSC;
2. Stop the sale of banned hazardous substances;
3. Stop the sale of products that have been recalled by CPSC;
4. Stop the sale of children products which have not been certified by third party laboratories as complying with the standards, rules and regulations administered by CPSC (once certification requirements have been implemented) and/or lack tracking labels (once this requirement is implemented in August 2009);
5. Enforce prohibitions against stock piling products in advance of regulation changes; and
6. Stop the sale of products with safety marks if use of such marks is unauthorized.
Before exercising its authority, SAGs must provide the Commission with 30 days notice. The CPSC then has a right to either institute an action itself or intervene in any suit subsequently commenced by the SAG.
In addition to the above categories of possible claims for injunctive relief, and indeed perhaps the most significant aspect of the deputization, the Improvement Act permits SAGs to initiate a civil action alleging that a product poses a “substantial product hazard.”
This enabling provision is a significant expansion of authority for SAGs. Under this mantel, a SAG can forego the 30-day notification requirement and file suit immediately in federal court.
Determination of what constitutes a “substantial product hazard” is, by necessity, a subjective process which requires consideration and balancing of a host of factors.
In the past it has been only the Commission which has made the determination, relying on factors such as: quality control data, test data, field reports of customer complaints and lawsuits.
Also relevant is the nature and severity of injuries that could be caused and the likelihood of encountering the hazard. Now, SAGs are invested with the authority to weigh these factors and make such determinations.
Obviously, the actions of one SAG could have significant ramifications for a product manufacturer well beyond the borders of that SAGs’ state.
The significance of vesting SAGs with discretion to determine that a “substantial product hazard” exists, and to commence an action on that basis cannot be overemphasized.
Certainly, instances have occurred where the Commission has commenced suit based on violation of a specific standard, rule or regulation, but, generally, the primary vehicle through which CPSC has exercised its enforcement authority has been based upon its determination that a product poses a “substantial product hazard”, and most recalls are made on this basis.
SAGs are likely to not be shy in utilizing this newly created authority. It is a matter of record that, at times, SAGs have been extremely critical of the CPSC and the vigorousness of its enforcement activities; examples abound.
For instance, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan recently criticized the CPSC’s policing of resales of recalled “close-sleeper/bedside sleeper” baby bassinets by manufacturer Simplicity, Inc. (See, Michael Bologna, Illinois AG Madigan Blasts CPSC Over Sales of Recalled Products on Craig’s List,36 BNA Product Safety & Liability Reporter, No. 40 (Oct. 13, 2008)).
In August 2008, CPSC launched a nationwide recall of nearly 900,000 bassinets manufactured by Simplicity under the Graco logo and the “Winnie the Pooh” motif, following strangulation deaths of two infants using the product.
In doing so, CPSC determined that the product posed a substantial product hazard because infants could be trapped in the bassinets’ metal bars and ultimately suffocate.
Thereafter, the Illinois attorney general’s office began to receive reports that notwithstanding the recall, hundreds of recalled bassinets were being sold on Craig’s List and eBay by sellers apparently unaware of the recall and the danger CPSC had identified.
The attorney general launched an investigation and, based on her findings, was sharply critical of CPSC, calling into question the value of federally imposed recalls where secondhand markets continue to trade, apparently unaware, in the recalled product.
The Illinois attorney general called on the CPSC to more aggressively police internet sites selling potentially dangerous recalled items noting “If these recalled items are still for sale on the secondary market, then what good is a recall? It’s nothing more than a piece of paper if it doesn’t effectively communicate with consumers and hold manufacturers accountable.” Id.
While the Illinois attorney general’s investigation and criticism were in turn criticized by CPSC as “grand standing” the lessons for manufacturers and others are clear. An overworked and underfunded CPSC is likely to be supplemented by aggressive SAGs more than willing to aggressively pursue manufacturers of consumer products, and the headlines that such cases will undoubtedly garner.
Indeed, shortly after criticizing the CPSC’s handling of the recall situation with respect to the Simplicity bassinets, on Oct. 28, 2008 the Illinois attorney general filed a lawsuit in state court in Cook County, Ill., against SFCA Inc. (which had acquired the Simplicity brand in March 2008). People of the State of Illinois v. SFCA Inc., 08 CH 40702, Cook County Civ. Ct. (10/28/08).
The complaint maintains actions based on Illinois consumer product statutes and alleges that SFCA continued to supply design-flawed bassinets to Illinois retailers, despite knowing that the design had caused at least one death that led to a design change.
According to the complaint, SFCA refused to participate in the recall, claiming it wasn’t responsible for the design flaws, which occurred prior to its acquisition of Simplicity. The complaint asks the court to
(1) prohibit SFCA from selling and distributing the bassinets,
(2) requiring SFCA to hire an independent consultant to develop a product safety protocol and review all of SFCA’s product designs to ensure compliance with safety standards,
(3) recall all bassinets that used the recalled design,
(4) provide refunds to retailers who issued refunds or store credits to consumers who returned the bassinets, and
(5) to notify the public of CPSC recalls by advertising in newspapers throughout Illinois.
Separately, the Illinois attorney general challenged CPSC’s actual recall policy, which allowed manufacturers to issue repair kits as remedies, instead of offering consumers replacement products, refunds or store credits. (Illinois AG, Press Release “Madigan launches three pronged attack against deadly sleep environments for infants” www.ag.state.il/us/pressroom (10/29/08).
The Illinois AG called on CPSC to change its policy to require manufacturers and distributors to offer refunds as the sole remedy in situations like this.
The Illinois attorney general further criticized CPSC for issuing complicated and confusing recall notices, which often contain long lists of model numbers and lack model names or retailer information.
True enough, in many instances it is likely that SAGs will continue to pursue remedies for defective consumer products in state court (and, indeed the recent Illinois suit by the attorney general against SFCA was brought in state court), utilizing applicable state statutes.
In fact, the Improvement Act contemplates this and specifically states that it shall not have a preemptive effect on the SAGs, stating that “Nothing in this section ... shall be construed ... to prevent the attorney general of a state ... from exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general . . . by the laws of such state ...” (Improvement Act §218).
In many cases one would expect SAGs to be more likely to pursue suit in a state court forum with which the AG is most familiar, enforcing rules and regulations which, again, the attorney general is most familiar.
But, in states where there are no statues similar to those enforced by the CPSC, The Improvement Act’s enabling provisions may prove quite attractive to SAGs.
Manufacturers doing business on a national basis confronted with a situation in which a potential “substantial product hazard” exists, or may exist, may be wise to seek to negotiate a settlement with CPSC, to lessen the prospect of having to negotiate a settlement with an SAG whose agenda may be different from CPSC and whose interpretations, particularly of what constitutes a “substantial product hazard,” may be unique or particularly troubling.
James Weller is a partner with Nixon Peabody in the firm's Jericho, N.Y., office. Christopher Thomas is a partner with the firm in the Rochester office.
Portfolio Media. Inc. | 648 Broadway, Suite 200 | New York, NY 10012 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 | Fax: +1 212 537 6371 | customerservice@portfoliomedia.com
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
HOOD LAW FIRM TAKES DEFENSE VERDICT IN IN-STORE ACCIDENT CASE The Hood Law Firm in Charleston, South Carolina continued its success earlier this month when Molly Craig, Chilton Simmons and Tyson Nettles took a defense verdict for a large home improvement chain in an in-store serious personal injury case.
While shopping for doors in one of defendant’s stores, plaintiff began inspecting doors lying on a display rack. In the process, plaintiff pushed several doors up on their edge, and then stepped into the display without securing the doors he had pushed up. A door weighing approximately sixty pounds fell on him. Plaintiff thereafter underwent two spinal surgeries.
Initially filed in state court, Home Depot removed the case to in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina in early July, 2006. After a little more than two years of litigation in the federal court, including substantial discovery and motion practice, the case was tried to a jury before Hon. C. Weston Houck.
At trial, Plaintiff presented evidence of substantial injuries to his spine and lower back and his herniated discs diagnosis. Plaintiff has not worked since the accident five and a half years ago and is not expected to work in the future, including for the reason that he is now addicted to pain-killing drugs.
Plaintiff’s trial exhibit list reflects plaintiff’s focus on damages (no exhibits concerning liability were evident in the docket; plaintiff’s list of trial exhibits included 39 medical records exhibits, employment information, the store’s incident report, a vocational evaluation, two x-rays and economic loss charts, but nothing other than the defendant’s own incident report concerning the liability issue).
Nevertheless, in view of the serious injuries sustained, including plaintiff’s addiction to pain-killer drugs, defendant made a substantial settlement offer but it was rejected prior to trial. After a one week trial, the jury returned a defense verdict. Plaintiff failed to prove liability, including that the display rack design was unreasonable. The Hood law firm’s costs were also awarded in the Court’s take nothing decision.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Sandberg Phoenix Offers Training to Minority Law Firms
Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard is offering Continuing Legal Education (CLE) opportunities for attorneys and staff members of minority law firms by extending its CLE program, “Training to New Heights,” to law firms with eight or fewer members in an effort to promote continued learning within the legal community.
“We believe we are the first private law firm to reach out to minority lawyers with CLE programs, which can be difficult to organize or expensive for a small law firm,” said Veronica L. Armouti, Co-chair of Sandberg Phoenix’s Diversity Committee.
The seminars will cover corporate practice, general litigation and specialty areas, such as medical malpractice and product liability. There also will be technology classes, such as Word, Excel and PowerPoint, offered for both attorneys and staff. All classes will be free of charge. Sandberg Phoenix is an accredited CLE sponsor for Missouri.
Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard has 70 attorneys and offers a broad range of legal services, including representation in the areas of health law, products liability defense, business litigation, estate planning, labor and employment law, financial institution law and business transactions and counseling. The firm has offices in St. Louis, Missouri and Edwardsville and Carbondale, Illinois.
# # #
For additional information contact:
Courtney Colombo Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, P.C. (314) 446-4359 ccolombo@spvg.com
.jpg)
Based on an annual survey of employees in Denver companies, the Denver Business Journal named the national civil litigation firm of 
A Texas German Shepherd dog breeder immediately sued for trademark infringement, claiming to own all rights to the name and trademark Rin Tin Tin, and seeking all profits, along with the destruction of all movie discs. The Houston Texas federal court recently ruled in favor of the producers, holding that their use of the name Rin Tin Tin in the body and title of the movie was a "fair use" and protected under the First Amendment. Trademarks are for the purpose of indicating the "source" of a product. Because the defendants' use of the mark "Rin Tin Tin" in the movie Finding Rin Tin Tin, did not suggest that plaintiffs were the source of the movie, and the use of the name merely describes the subject of the movie, the court reasoned that such use was "fair" and a protected literary work. The court dismissed the entire case against Beirne, Maynard & Parsons' clients. 
The Alabama Supreme Court 
In January 2009, 
The partners of 
In-house general counsel and senior litigation managers will attend two days of cutting-edge litigation management CLE provided by The Network of Trial Law Firms next month at our 46th Litigation Management Supercourse. This Spring's program will take place at the Silverado Resort in Napa Valley, California.
The Network's Michigan member firm, Dykema, a leading national law firm, recently announced that two members of the firm’s Litigation Department, Susan Artinian and Daniel Stephenson, have been named to the BTI Consulting Group’s Client Service All-Star Team for Law Firms 2009. This elite list honors a select group of attorneys who were identified by clients for having delivered superior client service to Fortune 1000 clients.
.jpg)
