Tracking Top Boutique Law Firms – Above the Law – Thompson Stevenson & Associates

Boutique
law
firms
are
transforming
the
legal
industry
by
prioritizing
personalized
client
service
and
specialized
expertise.
While
there
is
no
universally
accepted
definition
of
a “boutique”
law
firm,
there
are
a
few
commonly
accepted
criteria.
Unlike
large
firms,
boutique
practices
focus
on
building
close
relationships
with
clients,
offering
tailored
legal
solutions,
and
providing
direct
access
to
attorneys.
Their
smaller
size
enables
greater
agility
in
adapting
to
client
needs
and
industry
changes,
streamlined
operations,
and
reduced
bureaucracy.

These
firms
often
attract
lawyers
passionate
about
specific
areas
of
law,
resulting
in
dynamic
and
targeted
representation.
Clients
benefit
from
faster
response
times
and
deeper
engagement,
while
attorneys
enjoy
a
better
work-life
balance
and
more
hands-on
experience.
As
the
demand
for
personalization
and
efficiency
grows,
boutique
law
firms
are
paving
the
way
for
innovation
and
a
client-centered
approach
in
the
legal
profession.

Five
of
the
main
advantages
to
boutique
law
firms
can
be
described
as:

Specialized
Expertise:
Boutique
law
firms
focus
narrowly
on
specific
legal
areas,
offering
state-of-the-art
solutions
and
unmatched
efficiency
for
specialized
problems.
Client-Friendly
Fee
Structures:
They
provide
competitive
and
tailored
pricing,
often
more
favorable
than
Biglaw
firms.
Talented
and
Experienced
Lawyers:
Boutique
firms
are
frequently
staffed
by
top-tier
lawyers
with
Biglaw
experience,
bringing
high-level
expertise
to
a
focused
practice.
Leverage
Technology:
These
firms
use
cost-effective
tools
like
cloud
storage
and
virtual
office
solutions
to
reduce
overhead
and
remain
competitive.
Personalized
Service:
Boutique
firms
excel
in
offering
deeply
personal
and
customized
legal
solutions,
distinguishing
themselves
in
a
technology-driven
legal
market.

There
are
many
different
rankings
of
boutique
law
firms
but,
of
course,
the
ranked
firms
depend
on
the
definition
of
this
type
of
firm.
One
of
the
more
widely
accepted,
or
at
least
prolific
rankings
of
boutique
law
firms
is
from
the
website

Vault.

To
get
a
sense
of
boutique
law
firms’
business
I
took
a
look
at
the
top
six
ranked
boutique
law
firms
according
to
Vault:
Susman
Godfrey,
Kellogg
Hansen,
Bartlit
Beck,
Keker
Van
Nest,
Selendy
Gay,
and
Hecker
Fink.
Here
are
a
few
ways
to
think
about
boutique
law
firms
and
the
work
they
do.
First
a
look
at
the
extent
of
their
business
over
the
last
12
months
based
on
opinions
where
a
member
or
more
of
the
firm
was
listed
as
counsel.

Susman
Godfrey
works
on
quite
a
few
more
litigation
matters
than
the
other
firms.
To
drill
down
into
why,
here
are
a
few
data
points
on
each
of
these
law
firms
from
Vault’s
firm
profiles:

In
order
to
assess
these
firms’
reaches,
here
is
a
look
at
the
courts
where
these
firms
were
listed
on
opinions
across
the
same
period
as
the
graph
above.

To
gain
a
better
understanding
of
the
particularized
work
these
firms
do,
the
following
tracks
three
cases
where
these
firms’
lawyers
authored
briefs
over
the
past
12
months.
Each
case
assessment
looks
at
(1)
what
the
case
is
about,
(2)
what
the
brief’s
position
is,
and
(3)
why
the
brief
argues
that
the
position
is
correct.
This
should
provide
an
deep
look
at
the
type’s
of
matters
these
firms
handle
and
how
they
design
their
arguments.

Roberts
v.
Roberts
(Court
of
Appeals
of
Texas)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Vineet
Bhatia,
Shawn
L.
Raymond,
Scarlett
Collings,
Daniel
Wilson

What
the
case
is
about:
This
case
involves
a
dispute
between
Nicole
Roberts
and
her
brother,
Scott
Roberts,
regarding
breaches
of
the
operating
agreement
for
R
Partnership,
a
family
business.
Nicole
alleges
that
Scott
unilaterally
entered
into
unauthorized
multi-million-dollar
contracts,
misclassified
personal
expenditures
as
capital
contributions,
and
misused
partnership
funds,
leading
to
financial
and
operational
harm
to
the
partnership.
What
the
brief’s
position
is:
The
brief
argues
that
the
trial
court
erred
in
awarding
Scott
$5.9
million
for
purported
capital
contributions
and
denying
Nicole’s
claims.
It
contends
that
Scott
breached
the
operating
agreement,
acted
without
required
member
consent,
and
improperly
benefited
financially
from
his
unauthorized
actions,
which
violated
the
partnership’s
governing
terms.
Why
the
brief
argues
this
is
the
correct
outcome:
The
brief
asserts
that
the
operating
agreement’s
explicit
terms
prohibit
Scott’s
unilateral
actions,
making
his
expenditures
void
or
voidable.
It
argues
that
the
trial
court
misapplied
the
agreement
by
crediting
Scott
for
unauthorized
expenditures
and
improperly
treating
them
as
capital
contributions.
Correcting
these
errors
would
uphold
the
agreement’s
terms,
prevent
unjust
enrichment,
and
fairly
compensate
Nicole
for
the
partnership’s
losses
caused
by
Scott’s
actions.

FS
Credit
Opportunities
v.
Saba
(US
Supreme
/
Petition
Stage)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Mark
Musico,
Jacob
W.
Buchdahl,
Zach
Fields

What
the
case
is
about:
This
case
deals
with
whether
people
or
companies
can
sue
to
cancel
contracts
that
break
certain
rules
in
the
Investment
Company
Act
(ICA).
It
focuses
on
a
past
decision
by
the
Second
Circuit
Court.
The
brief’s
position:
The
brief
argues
that
the
court’s
decision
was
right,
saying
the
law
does
allow
people
to
sue
to
cancel
these
contracts,
and
there’s
no
reason
for
the
Supreme
Court
to
change
it.
Why
the
brief
argues
that
this
is
the
correct
outcome:
The
brief
says
the
law
clearly
says
that
people
should
be
able
to
cancel
contracts
that
violate
the
ICA.
It
also
points
out
that
past
legal
decisions
support
this
understanding.

Risk
Point
v.
Santander
(Court
of
Appeals
of
Texas)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Ophelia
F.
Camiña,
Shawn
L.
Raymond,
Mary
Katheryn
Sammons,
Larry
Y.
Liu

What
this
case
is
about:
The
case
involves
a
dispute
over
whether
a
company,
Santander,
had
the
right
to
request
an
audit
after
the
time
limit
specified
in
a
contract
with
Risk
Theory.
The
contract
set
a
deadline
for
audits
to
occur
within
a
quarter
after
the
end
of
a
policy,
and
Santander
made
a
request
outside
that
period.
What
is
the
brief’s
position:
The
brief
argues
that
Santander’s
audit
request
was
not
made
on
time
and
that
the
contract
clearly
limits
the
time
frame
for
such
requests.
It
states
that
the
audit
should
only
happen
within
a
specific
period
after
the
policy
ends,
not
long
after.
Why
the
brief
argues
this
is
the
correct
outcome:
The
brief
argues
that
allowing
Santander’s
late
audit
request
would
violate
the
contract’s
clear
terms,
and
the
court
should
enforce
the
deadline.
If
the
court
rules
in
favor
of
Santander,
it
could
lead
to
unfair
outcomes
by
letting
audits
happen
too
late,
which
the
contract
did
not
intend.

In
re
Securities
Technology
and
Pay
Tel
Communications
(US
Supreme
Court
/
Petition
Stage)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Scott
H.
Angstreich,,
Justin
B.
Berg,
Jordan
R.G.
Gonzalez

What
this
case
is
about:
The
case
concerns
a
dispute
over
the
proper
court
to
handle
appeals
related
to
decisions
made
by
the
Federal
Communications
Commission
(FCC).
The
issue
is
whether
petitions
for
review
of
the
FCC’s
rules
should
be
heard
in
the
Fifth
Circuit
or
another
court,
particularly
given
the
timeliness
of
when
petitions
were
filed.
What
is
the
brief’s
position:
The
brief
argues
that
the
petitions
challenging
the
FCC’s
rules
were
filed
too
early,
before
the
rules
were
published
in
the
Federal
Register,
making
them
invalid.
It
contends
that
the
petitions
should
have
been
filed
in
the
Fifth
Circuit,
which
is
the
proper
court
for
these
cases.
Why
the
brief
argues
that
this
is
the
correct
outcome:
The
brief
claims
that
the
law
requires
petitions
to
be
filed
within
specific
time
limits
to
ensure
fairness
and
clarity.
By
not
following
these
rules,
the
petitioners
caused
confusion
and
forum-shopping,
which
could
delay
the
legal
process.
The
correct
outcome
is
to
transfer
the
cases
to
the
Fifth
Circuit
as
the
law
mandates.

Pomona
Hospital
v.
Kaiser
(CA
Ct.
Appeals)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Daniel
G.
Bird,,
Eric
J.
Maier,
Kathleen
W.
Hickey

What
the
case
is
about:
This
case
involves
a
dispute
between
Kaiser
and
Pomona
about
how
much
Kaiser
should
pay
Pomona
for
emergency
services.
The
issue
is
whether
an
expert’s
valuation
of
the
payments
was
correct,
especially
since
the
expert
used
certain
rates
that
he
previously
said
were
not
comparable
to
the
services
in
question.
The
brief’s
position:
The
brief
argues
that
the
expert’s
opinion
should
be
excluded
because
he
used
inconsistent
methods,
like
comparing
rates
that
were
not
similar.
The
expert
also
invented
a
“premium”
calculation
with
no
logical
explanation,
making
his
valuation
unreliable
and
not
based
on
sound
reasoning.
Why
this
is
the
correct
outcome:
The
brief
contends
that
excluding
the
expert’s
opinion
is
the
right
decision
because
it
lacked
a
solid
foundation
and
logical
consistency.
Additionally,
the
trial
court
incorrectly
applied
a
higher
prejudgment
interest
rate,
which
should
have
been
7%
according
to
California
law,
not
10%.
Therefore,
the
judgment
should
be
modified
to
reflect
this
legal
error.

Durnell
v.
Monsanto
(MO
Ct.
Appeals)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
David
C.
Frederick,
Derek
C.
Reinbold

What
the
case
is
about:
The
case
concerns
whether
the
government’s
actions
in
a
specific
situation
were
legal.
The
dispute
centers
around
whether
the
government
violated
laws
or
constitutional
rights
while
making
a
decision.
The
outcome
could
affect
the
legal
boundaries
of
government
power
and
individuals’
rights.
What
the
brief’s
position
is:
The
brief
argues
that
the
government’s
actions
were
unlawful
and
should
be
declared
illegal.
It
contends
that
the
law
was
not
properly
followed,
and
that
certain
rights
were
violated
in
the
process.
The
brief
advocates
for
a
ruling
that
holds
the
government
accountable
for
its
actions.
Why
the
brief
argues
this
is
the
correct
outcome:
The
brief
argues
that
the
government’s
conduct
caused
harm
and
undermined
individuals’
rights.
It
believes
that
enforcing
the
law
in
this
case
will
prevent
similar
violations
in
the
future.
Upholding
the
law
ensures
that
the
government
operates
within
its
constitutional
limits
and
protects
fairness
for
all.

Appvion
v.
Price
Waterhouse
Coopers
(Ct.
App.
WI)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Philip
S.
Beck,
Christopher
D.
Landgraff,
Cindy
L.
Sobel,
Joshua
P.
Ackerman,
Joseph
C.
Smith
Jr.

What
the
case
is
about: The
case
involves
a
claim
by
an
Employee
Stock
Ownership
Plan
(ESOP)
against
PricewaterhouseCoopers
(PwC)
for
negligent
misrepresentation.
The
ESOP
argues
that
PwC’s
audit
misrepresented
information
that
influenced
the
company’s
share
price.
The
circuit
court
dismissed
this
claim,
and
the
ESOP
is
appealing
the
decision.
What
the
brief’s
position
is:
The
brief
argues
that
the
court’s
dismissal
of
the
negligent
misrepresentation
claim
was
correct.
It
states
that
the
ESOP
failed
to
meet
the
legal
requirements
for
proving
fraud
or
negligence,
as
they
did
not
provide
specific
details
about
who
relied
on
PwC’s
audit
or
how
it
impacted
them.
Therefore,
the
claim
should
not
have
proceeded.
Why
the
brief
argues
this
is
the
correct
outcome: The
brief
contends
that
the
ESOP
did
not
show
sufficient
evidence
or
specifics
about
how
PwC’s
audit
affected
anyone
involved.
Under
the
law,
they
are
required
to
clearly
identify
the
misrepresentations
and
who
relied
on
them,
which
the
ESOP
failed
to
do.
For
these
reasons,
the
brief
requests
that
the
court
uphold
the
dismissal.

Sunoco
Partners
v.
Trinity
Industries
(Ct.
App.
Texas)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Christopher
D.
Landgraff,
Tulsi
Gaonkar,
Ignacio
Sofo,
Mac
Lebuhn

What
the
case
is
about:
This
case
involves
a
dispute
between
Sunoco
and
Trinity
over
a
lease
agreement.
Trinity
claims
it
is
owed
damages
for
railcars
that
were
supposed
to
be
modified,
but
Sunoco
disagrees
and
argues
that
the
charges
and
interest
are
not
justified.
What
the
brief’s
position
is:
Sunoco
argues
that
the
trial
court
wrongly
awarded
prejudgment
interest
and
that
the
damages
Trinity
is
claiming
are
not
appropriate.
Sunoco
believes
that
the
interest
and
damages
should
not
be
calculated
as
if
they
were
already
due,
because
they
represent
future
costs,
not
present
ones.
Why
the
brief
argues
this
is
the
correct
outcome:
Sunoco
claims
that
awarding
prejudgment
interest
would
unfairly
benefit
Trinity,
since
they’ve
already
received
rent
payments
and
now
damages
for
the
railcar
modifications.
The
brief
argues
that
such
a
windfall
goes
against
Texas
law,
which
prevents
one
party
from
getting
more
than
they
are
owed.

Tricarichi
v.
Price
Waterhouse
Coopers
(Sup.
Ct.
NV)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Mark
L.
Levine,
Christopher
D.
Landgraff,
Katharine
A.
Roin,

What
the
case
is
about:
This
case
involves
Tricarichi
rejecting
two
settlement
offers
from
PwC
related
to
a
legal
claim
he
filed.
The
district
court
decided
that
Tricarichi
acted
unreasonably
by
rejecting
the
offers,
considering
the
weaknesses
in
his
claim
and
the
limitations
on
potential
damages.
The
brief’s
position:
The
brief
argues
that
the
district
court
was
correct
in
finding
Tricarichi’s
rejection
of
the
2021
settlement
offer
unreasonable.
It
explains
that
Tricarichi
knew
his
claim
had
serious
legal
problems,
including
a
statute
of
limitations
issue,
and
that
the
settlement
was
fair
given
the
situation.
Why
this
is
the
correct
outcome:
The
brief
asserts
that
the
district
court
acted
properly
by
awarding
PwC
attorney’s
fees
because
Tricarichi’s
decision
to
reject
the
offers
forced
unnecessary
legal
costs.
It
argues
that
the
court’s
decision
should
stand
because
it
was
based
on
a
thorough
examination
of
the
facts
and
legal
standards.

Associated
General
Contractors
of
CA
v.
CA
Dept.
of
Industrial
Relations
(CA
Ct.
App)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Steven
A.
Hirsch,
Reaghan
E.
Braun

What
the
Case
is
About:
This
case
examines
the
validity
of
regulatory
amendments
made
by
the
CAC,
specifically
regarding
their
economic
impact
on
the
construction
industry.
Petitioners
claim
that
the
CAC
failed
to
thoroughly
assess
the
impact
and
that
their
analysis
was
flawed.
The
Brief’s
Position:
The
brief
maintains
that
the
CAC
followed
proper
procedures,
including
considering
public
input
and
revising
their
analysis
as
necessary.
It
asserts
that
the
agency’s
actions
were
legally
sound
and
consistent
with
administrative
requirements.
Why
the
Brief
Argues
This
is
the
Correct
Outcome:
The
brief
argues
that
the
CAC’s
approach
was
reasonable,
and
any
adjustments
made
during
the
process
were
minor
and
did
not
require
reopening
the
public
comment
period.
It
concludes
that
the
rule
changes
align
with
legal
standards
and
should
be
upheld.

Kaufman
v.
Adani
(CA
Ct.
App.)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Jan
Nielsen
Little,
Julia
L.
Allen,
Amos
J.
B.
Espeland

What
the
Case
is
About: The
case
involves
a
dispute
between
Plaintiffs
and
the
QOZ
Entities,
which
manage
investments
through
specific
agreements.
The
Plaintiffs
argue
that
certain
claims
should
be
handled
through
arbitration
based
on
prior
agreements
between
the
parties.
They
challenge
the
QOZ
Entities’
role
in
receiving
investments
and
whether
these
agreements
apply
to
the
dispute.
The
central
issue
is
whether
the
case
should
be
resolved
in
court
or
through
arbitration.
The
Brief’s
Position: The
brief
argues
that
all
of
the
Plaintiffs’
claims
against
the
QOZ
Entities
should
be
resolved
through
arbitration.
It
emphasizes
that
the
claims
are
tied
to
previous
agreements,
which
include
mandatory
arbitration
clauses.
The
brief
insists
that
these
agreements
cover
the
issues
raised
by
the
Plaintiffs,
so
the
dispute
should
go
through
arbitration
instead
of
court.
It
also
contends
that
any
confusion
about
arbitration
applicability
should
not
prevent
it.
Why
the
Brief
Argues
This
is
the
Correct
Outcome: The
brief
argues
that
arbitration
is
the
proper
venue
because
the
claims
are
directly
linked
to
agreements
that
include
arbitration
clauses.
It
explains
that
splitting
the
case
between
court
and
arbitration
would
lead
to
confusion,
inconsistent
rulings,
and
wasted
resources.
The
brief
further
asserts
that
arbitration
will
provide
an
efficient
resolution
of
the
claims.
Lastly,
it
suggests
that
the
trial
court’s
decision
risks
delaying
justice
and
complicating
the
legal
process.

Matterport
v.
Gay

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Jennifer
Selendy,
Joshua
S.
Margolin,
David
A.
Coon,
Corey
Stoughton

What
the
Case
is
About: This
case
involves
a
dispute
over
interpreting
specific
“Lockup
Provisions”
in
an
agreement
following
the
merger
of
two
companies.
Brown
claims
that
Matterport
wrongly
restricted
his
ability
to
sell
shares
and
seeks
damages
based
on
what
he
alleges
is
the
highest
intermediate
value
of
the
shares
during
the
restricted
period.
Matterport
argues
its
enforcement
of
these
restrictions
was
proper
and challenges
the
damages
calculation.
The
case
also
addresses
how
post-judgment
interest
rates
should
be
applied
in
cases
with
complex
judgment
phases.
The
Brief’s
Position: Matterport
argues
that
it
properly
applied
the
Lockup
Provisions
in
good
faith
and
that
Brown’s
damages
calculations
are
legally
flawed.
It
contends
the
trial
court
initially
ruled
on
key
issues
in
its
favor
during
Phase
1
and
that
this
should
control
subsequent
damages
analysis.
The
company
opposes
using
the
highest
intermediate
value
methodology
for
damages,
claiming
it
is
not
applicable
here.
It
also
supports
the
trial
court’s
decision
on
post-judgment
interest
rates,
which
it
sees
as
equitable.
Why
This
is
the
Correct
Outcome: Matterport
believes
its
actions
were
lawful
and
consistent
with
the
court’s
earlier
rulings,
meaning
the
damages
analysis
should
align
with
those
rulings.
It
argues
that
applying
Brown’s
damages
method
would
lead
to
unfair
outcomes
and
financial
windfalls
not
supported
by
the
law.
On
post-judgment
interest,
it
states
that
using
an
older,
lower
rate
would
allow
for
manipulation
and
fail
to
reflect
rising
interest
rates.
The
brief
emphasizes
that
Matterport
acted
in
good
faith,
which
should
weigh
heavily
in
its
favor.

Building
and
Realty
Institute
of
Westchester
v.
New
York
(US
Supreme
/
Petition
Stage)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Corey
Stoughton,
Counsel
of
Record,
Faith
E.
Gay,
Sean
P.
Baldwin,
Babak
Ghafarzade

What
this
case
is
about:
The
petitioners
are
challenging
a
law
known
as
the
Housing
Stability
and
Tenant
Protection
Act
(HSTPA),
which
affects
rent-controlled
housing
in
New
York.
They
argue
that
the
law
harms
their
ability
to
make
a
profit
from
their
properties,
claiming
it
violates
their
rights
under
the
U.S.
Constitution.
The
law
limits
rent
increases
and
makes
it
harder
to
remove
tenants.
The
petitioners
are
asking
the
Court
to
overturn
the
law.
What
is
the
brief’s
position:
The
brief
defends
the
HSTPA,
arguing
that
it
serves
a
legitimate
purpose
of
providing
affordable
housing
and
maintaining
neighborhood
stability.
It
explains
that
the
petitioners
failed
to
provide
clear
evidence
that
the
law
harmed
them
in
a
way
that
violates
constitutional
protections.
The
brief
also
says
that
the
petitioners’
claims
are
based
on
speculation,
not
concrete
facts.
It
stresses
that
the
law
has
valid,
public
interests
that
are
not
unconstitutional.
Why
the
brief
argues
that
this
is
the
correct
outcome:
The
brief
argues
that
the
petitioners
did
not
show
they
were
directly
affected
by
the
law,
so
their
case
should
be
dismissed.
It
highlights
that
the
petitioners
did
not
use
all
available
options
to
challenge
the
law,
making
their
claims
premature.
It
also
points
out
that
the
HSTPA
was
enacted
for
the
public
good,
and
courts
should
not
second-guess
legislative
decisions.
Therefore,
the
brief
says
the
Court
should
deny
the
petition
and
leave
the
law
in
place.

Ocean
Trails
CLO
v.
MLN
Topco
Ltd.
(Supreme
Court,
Appellate
Division,
First
Department,
New
York)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Jennifer
Selendy,
Andrew
Dunlap,
David
A.
Coon,
Stephen
Federowicz

What
this
case
is
about: The
case
revolves
around
a
dispute
between
Defendants
and
Mitel
over
the
assignment
and
refinancing
of
loans.
The
Defendants
are
accused
of
breaching
contractual
terms
by
exchanging
loans
for
new
debt,
which
the
Plaintiffs
argue
is
not
allowed
under
the
agreement.
This
is
important
because
it
involves
how
loan
transactions
should
be
conducted
according
to
the
contract.
The
case
examines
whether
Mitel’s
actions
violated
specific
provisions
in
the
loan
agreement.
What
is
the
brief’s
position: The
brief
argues
that
the
Defendants
broke
the
contract
by
treating
the
loan
exchange
as
a
“purchase,”
which
is
not
allowed
under
the
agreement.
It
asserts
that
the
transaction
was
an
“exchange”
of
debt,
not
a
cash
purchase,
and
thus
violates
the
terms
of
the
loan
agreement.
The
brief
challenges
the
idea
that
such
exchanges
are
permitted
as
purchases
under
the
contract.
It
further
argues
that
the
Defendants
also
breached
rules
around
refinancing
and
the
ranking
of
new
debt.
Why
the
brief
argues
this
is
the
correct
outcome:
The
brief
believes
the
court
should
recognize
that
the
term
“purchase”
means
a
transaction
involving
cash
or
its
equivalent,
not
an
exchange
of
loans.
It
argues
that
the
Defendants’
actions
go
against
the
plain
meaning
of
the
contract
and
create
an
unfair
advantage
for
Mitel.
The
brief
also
insists
that
the
actions
hurt
the
Plaintiffs’
interests
by
violating
agreed-upon
terms
about
the
ranking
of
debt.
Therefore,
the
brief
asks
the
court
to
correct
these
breaches
and
reinstate
certain
claims.

Brown
v.
Johnson
(Ct.
App.
LA)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Thomas
B.
Wahlder,
Stephen
J.
Hecker,
Laurie
Ann
Simms

What
the
Case
is
About:
This
case
involves
a
car
accident
where
Martha
Brown,
driving
a
bus,
collided
with
Arkita
Johnson,
who
was
driving
a
car.
The
issue
is
whether
Martha
Brown
or
Arkita
Johnson
is
at
fault
for
the
accident.
Witnesses
testified
that
Martha
Brown
had
a
green
light
when
entering
the
intersection.
Arkita
Johnson
was
allegedly
distracted
by
her
cellphone
and
failed
to
stop
for
a
red
light.
What
the
Brief’s
Position
Is:
The
brief
argues
that
Arkita
Johnson
was
solely
responsible
for
the
accident.
It
claims
that
Martha
Brown
did
not
cause
the
crash
and
was
not
negligent.
The
brief
highlights
that
Martha
Brown
was
following
traffic
rules,
and
the
collision
happened
too
quickly
for
her
to
react.
The
evidence
shows
that
Arkita
Johnson’s
actions,
like
using
her
phone,
were
the
main
cause
of
the
crash.
Why
the
Brief
Argues
This
is
the
Correct
Outcome:
The
brief
argues
that
the
jury
correctly
found
Arkita
Johnson
at
fault
based
on
the
evidence
and
witness
testimony.
It
states
that
the
trial
was
fair
and
the
jury
had
reasonable
grounds
to
believe
Martha
Brown
was
not
at
fault.
Any
mistakes
in
jury
instructions
or
expert
testimony
should
not
change
the
outcome.
The
brief
insists
that
there
is
no
reason
to
overturn
the
jury’s
decision,
as
it
was
based
on
solid
facts.

Carroll
v.
Trump
(Second
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Joshua
Matz,
Kate
Harris,
;
Roberta
A.
Kaplan,
Matthew
Craig

What
this
case
is
about:
This
case
involves
a
defamation
lawsuit
where
E.
Jean
Carroll
accused
Donald
Trump
of
sexual
assault
and
defamation.
Carroll
claims
Trump
lied
about
the
assault
and
ruined
her
reputation.
The
trial
included
testimony
from
Carroll
and
other
witnesses
who
supported
her
claims.
Trump
disagrees
with
the
court’s
decisions
and
argues
that
key
evidence
should
not
have
been
allowed.
What
is
the
brief’s
position:
The
brief
argues
that
Trump’s
objections
to
the
trial
and
evidence
are
not
valid.
It
explains
that
the
court
correctly
allowed
testimony
from
other
women
who
claimed
similar
behavior
by
Trump.
It
also
defends
the
jury
instructions,
which
limited
how
the
jury
could
use
the
“other
acts”
evidence.
Trump’s
claim
that
this
evidence
unfairly
influenced
the
trial
is
dismissed
as
exaggerated.
Why
the
brief
argues
this
is
the
correct
outcome:
The
brief
argues
the
trial
was
fair
and
that
the
evidence
strongly
supported
Carroll’s
case.
It
highlights
that
Carroll’s
testimony,
along
with
other
reliable
witnesses,
was
the
core
of
the
case.
The
inclusion
of
“other
acts”
evidence
was
secondary
and
did
not
change
the
outcome.
Ultimately,
the
brief
says
the
court’s
decisions
were
right
and
should
be
upheld
because
Carroll’s
case
was
compelling
and
credible.

NRA
v.
Vullo
(US
Supreme
/
Merits
Case)

Attorneys
on
the
case: Trevor
W.
Morrison

What
this
case
is
about:
The
case
centers
around
the
National
Rifle
Association
(NRA)
challenging
the
actions
of
Maria
Vullo,
a
former
official
at
the
New
York
Department
of
Financial
Services
(DFS).
The
NRA
argues
that
Vullo’s
statements
and
actions
pressured
private
companies
and
violated
its
free
speech
rights.
The
case
explores
whether
Vullo’s
statements
were
coercive
or
just
regular
government
speech.
It
addresses
whether
government
officials
can
be
sued
for
expressing
opinions
that
may
indirectly
affect
certain
businesses.
What
is
the
brief’s
position:
The
brief
defends
Maria
Vullo’s
actions,
asserting
that
she
was
exercising
her
legitimate
authority
as
a
government
official,
not
coercing
anyone.
It
argues
that
referencing
“reputational
risk”
in
the
letters
sent
to
businesses
is
a
legitimate
regulatory
concern,
not
a
threat.
The
brief
claims
that
the
NRA’s
interpretation
of
the
situation
is
overly
broad
and
ignores
the
context
of
Vullo’s
actions.
It
maintains
that
Vullo
was
within
her
rights
to
highlight
risks
and
hold
the
NRA
accountable
for
violations.
Why
the
brief
argues
this
is
the
correct
outcome:
The
brief
argues
that
adopting
the
NRA’s
interpretation
would
harm
government
officials’
ability
to
speak
freely
and
do
their
jobs
effectively.
It
warns
that
allowing
this
kind
of
lawsuit
could
deter
officials
from
engaging
in
important
regulatory
actions
for
fear
of
being
accused
of
retaliation.
The
brief
emphasizes
that
government
officials
need
to
be
able
to
discuss
risks
and
legal
compliance
without
facing
constant
lawsuits.
It
concludes
that
protecting
this
ability
is
essential
for
the
proper
functioning
of
government
and
law
enforcement.

Susman
Godfrey’s
size
and
geographic
diversity
help
explain
the
larger
share
of
litigation.
Several
of
these
firms
focus
on
matters
related
to
antitrust
law.
The
majority
of
these
firms
have
only
one
office.
All
of
the
firms
are
based
in
major
cities.
Starting
salaries
are
comparable
to
those
at
Biglaw
firms.

If
you
enjoyed
reading
this
post
you
may
think
about
becoming
a
paid
subscriber
to
have
access
to
all
posts
on Legalytics.
Also
please
consider
sharing
this
with
others
and
feel
free
to
post
any
questions
or
comments.

+263 242 744 677

4 Gunhill Avenue,

Tracking Top Boutique Law Firms – Above the Law