Clark Hill Thorp Reed lawyers exemplify the firm’s commitment to hard work, high ethical standards and dedication to client service. Our attorneys practice in diverse areas of law, and combine a multidisciplinary approach to solving legal problems. The bottom line: Clients of Clark Hill Thorp Reed benefit from attorneys whose expertise and commitment deliver effective client outcomes and superior legal service.
February 1, 2010
The Pennsylvania Superior Court and Supreme Court have made a mess of things.
December 16, 2009
In Warfield Philadelphia, L.P. v. Nat’l Passenger R.R. Corp., 2009 WL 4043112 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 2009), the owner of a parking facility (“Warfield”) sued Amtrak, alleging tortious interference with contract, among other claims.
April 3, 2009
In a controversial 2007 decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in Nationwide v. Fleming, declared that Pennsylvania’s attorney-client privilege applies only to communications flowing from client to counsel, and the Court also took a very narrow view of the “derivative protection” that Pennsylvania courts typically and historically have afforded to confidential communications flowing in the opposite direction, from counsel to client. Fleming is on appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard argument in March 2008, but the Court has not yet issued a decision.
March 31, 2009
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has declared that the government cannot take private property merely because the government has concluded that the property could be put to a more productive economic use.
July 30, 2008
On July 9, 2008, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Department of Justice would soon issue revisions to the so-called “McNulty Memo,” which sets forth the factors that federal prosecutors are to consider in deciding whether to charge a corporation with a crime.
July 1, 2008
The Philadelphia Lawyer published an article, “Delimiting Defamation: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Protects Reputation From Freedom of Speech Defense,”" by Kevin P. Allen, partner in Thorp Reed's Commercial & Corporate Litigation Practice. The article was printed in the Summer 2008 edition of the magazine.
March 3, 2008
The attorney-client privilege does not protect facts from discovery. The privilege, however, does apply with full vigor to a client’s communication of facts to his or her lawyer. Courts have struggled with that important distinction. A recent decision from the United States Court of Federal Claims – Christofferson v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 810 (2007) – provides an example.
October 19, 2011
11:30 a.m. Registration; 11:45 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Lunch & Presentation
Learn More
