Comprehensive Legal Services
General Civil Practice
We believe in finding common ground in order to achieve our clients’ desired results while maintaining respect for the common good. We, therefore, prefer to raise issues by notice letter and then to mediate disputes to a fair resolution in private. In our numerous cases against federal agencies accused of unlawful discrimination, we seek mediation at all steps of the grivance process, from Pre-Complaint to Pre-Trial.
Unfortunately, though, our years of experience with private-sector employers have illustrated that too many defense attorneys operate with incentives that work the other way. Prolonging cases by encouraging us to bring administrative charges and/or lawsuits can fatten the pocketbooks of defense lawyers whose law-firm business plans may depend on serial protractions. Such defense attorneys may bill hundreds of dollars per hour to wealthy corporate clients whose managers and executives want to believe they are innocent, even when the evidence shows otherwise. In the face of such emotionalism, defense lawyers stand to gain unmeasured sums of money from their clients by acting as though decent defenses to the employer misconduct exist and assuring their exposed client that things will work out for them. In fact, Amos Jones has opined that one reason that defense lawyers seem never to work on a contingency-fee/merit-pay basis in employment cases is that they know full well they could lose in the end, and they want to collect their big checks regardless of the results. They therefore draw out cases for as many years as possible, attempting to drain our clients, the plaintiffs, of resources while hoping that we, the Plaintiffs' laywers, give up and go away. We do not.
And that is why in 2019, the Firm began suing intransigent parties in court as soon as possible after their defense lawyers have demonstrated to us that they will churn the case and burn the clients so that they can re-qualify for partnership the next year based on the lavish billings they racked up at their in-denial client’s expense. Suing saves time, we have learned, despite our strong desire to avoid the inefficiencies of court. The upshot is that Plainitffs tend to obtain larger recoveries after this threshold has been crossed and reasonable settlements rejected.
Once we have filed in court, we go to win, and to win completely. We appeal aggressively, and though we can never promise a result, we always know the operative facts and the law and how they interrelate for our client’s advantage. We make that upper hand quite clear in every pleading we file.