Concentrating on corporate law, financial and real estate transactions, and litigation, Clark Hill Thorp Reed attorneys deliver expertise in multiple practice areas and industries. Our reputation is grounded in the highest ethical standards and strongest commitment to client service. In a world of increasing complexity, Clark Hill Thorp Reed provides confident and sure counsel. Our multidisciplinary approach means working hard and working smart on our clients’ behalf to provide innovative and cost-effective solutions to legal problems.
Clark Hill Thorp Reed's litigation group consists of proven trial attorneys, experienced in “bet the company” litigation. Respected legal directories such as Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business (Chambers) and Benchmark: America's Leading Litigation Firms and Attorneys (Benchmark) consistently rank our litigators as among the best in Pennsylvania. The litigation practice at Clark Hill Thorp Reed is one of only a handful recommended in Pennsylvania according to Benchmark’s prestigious law firm rankings. Moreover, Chambers lauds the firm as “a natural choice for defending substantial commercial cases” with “an impressive courtroom presence.” By effectively melding trial strategy with business savvy, our litigation group deserves its place among the nation’s elite litigation practices.
Clark Hill Thorp Reed offers its litigation clients the capabilities of many knowledgeable and talented attorneys. In addition to seasoned counsel, many of the firm’s younger partners are among the most successful litigators at Clark Hill Thorp Reed.
Our litigation clients range from Fortune 500 companies facing class actions to individuals facing the overwhelming and unfamiliar prospect of litigation. For each, our team of litigators is committed to cutting to the core of a dispute to achieve the best results for our clients.
A claim or dispute - regardless of value involved - may be of overwhelming significance to a client or it may be routine. A client may expect daily communication and updates on a litigation matter or they may prefer to be contacted only for significant, strategic decisions. Only the client can decide the relative importance of each litigation matter and the manner in which counsel may best keep them informed.
Our lawyers work with clients from the outset to determine goals, concerns and preferences. We work with the client to evaluate each litigation matter and consider the critical factors that may affect our approach, including: What is the impact of the litigation on the client’s business? Do the parties have an ongoing business or personal relationship? What is the real cost of the litigation, in terms of money and disruption to the business? Only when the client’s goals are clear can a desirable outcome be achieved.
Based on these discussions, we develop a litigation plan for each matter. Early evaluation of a case enables us to propose appropriate staffing and management of the cases. As the case progresses, our lawyers and our clients use the litigation plan as a barometer to measure progress, plan future action and weigh the most appropriate and cost-effective outcome.
That outcome may be in the form of alternative dispute resolution. It may be settlement. It may be trial. Regardless of the ultimate resolution decision, we believe that the best litigation results are achieved by lawyers who are prepared to try cases.
Financial institutions and law firms alike should take note of a recent lawsuit filed by the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in July 2012.
Commercial lenders in Pennsylvania need to be aware of the Commonwealth Court’s July 27, 2012 decision in Girard Finance Company and Thomas Richter v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.
This article, authored by Christopher M. Brubaker, appears in the June 2012 Litigation: Auto Law Supplement of The Legal Intelligencer.
For businesses involved with commercial services contracts the issue of indemnification and provision of insurance clauses are becoming ever more prevalent and important.
Thorp Reed & Armstrong's Insurance & Reinsurance Briefing highlights recent developments in the insurance and reinsurance industry.
Entering the United States market is an important business strategy and consideration for foreign companies in the high technology, life sciences and green energy industries. The United States market is large and a traditional leader in technology and pharmaceutical products. Successfully establishing a presence in the United States can substantially help a foreign business increase its market share both in the United States market and in its home market.
Cosmetic Sets Return to the Essentials. The Court of International Trade Rejects Customs’ Prior Rulings on Retail Sets in Reusable Containers. Estée Lauder, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-00217 (Ct. Int’l Trade, Jan. 3, 2012).
Thorp Reed & Armstrong's Insurance & Reinsurance Briefing highlights recent developments in the insurance and reinsurance industry.
Materials from the December 8, 2011 DELVACCA presentation.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently determined that it is not equipped to answer whether Marcellus shale gas is, under the law, a "mineral" or "gas," and that further scientific evidence is needed to enable the courts to make that determination.
Jonathan W. Hugg's recent presentation on Corporate Political Rights
This C3 | Complex Commercial Contract Litigation alert is provided by the attorneys of Thorp Reed's C3 Practice Group. The Group is comprised of skilled commercial litigators who will analyze, strategize, negotiate, prosecute, or defend your company's contract dispute.
In early 2008, we authored an article entitled “Identifying the Categories of Disputes Emerging From the Subprime Meltdown.” In that article, we predicted that the “subprime meltdown” would lead to various “tranches” of public and private enforcement and recovery activity. We identified the first tranche as including the predictable and garden variety consumer and regulatory suits against lenders, brokers and appraisers. As anticipated, over the past three years, we have seen these disputes materialize, in different shapes and sizes, and docketed in state and federal courts across the country.
National City Mortgage Company v. Brian Stephen, et al., United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 09-1731. Appeal from the U.S.D.C. for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (No. 3-07-cv-02070), Decided July 22, 2011.
Thorp Reed & Armstrong's Insurance & Reinsurance Briefing highlights recent developments in the insurance and reinsurance industry.
Since the Affordable Care Act (“Act”) became law in March of 2010, the question we benefits attorneys are most often asked is, “Don’t you think health care reform is going to go away (be repealed) (be ruled unconstitutional)?” We consistently have answered “no.” And despite the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued on August 12, 2011, our answer stays the same.
The Summer 2011 edition of the Product Liability Update contains such articles as "United States Supreme Court Holds Failure to Warn Claims against Generic Drug Manufacturers are Federally Pre-empted" and "Pennsylvania Supreme Court Upholds Product Line Exception to Rule of Successor Non-liability, and Justices Split on Recovery of Bystander Emotional Distress Damages.”
In the recent decision in William A Graham Company, d/b/a The Graham Company v. Thomas P. Haughey and USI MidAtlantic, Inc., No. 10-2762, Slip Op. (May 16, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed the significant relief available to a prevailing plaintiff in a commercial copyright case.
The Nov. 24 issue of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine included an article by Dr. David C. Ring, a surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, that might have made defense counsel cringe. In the article, Ring vividly describes how a series of personal and systemic mistakes led him to operate on the wrong arm of a 65-year-old woman. Through this disclosure, Ring hoped that others would learn from and avoid his traumatic mistake.
In his Jan. 10 opinion piece, Professor Ronald Rotunda argues that "not buying [health] insurance, like not buying spinach, is not an economic act," and therefore the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Health care, however, is not spinach, and his analogy deserves a failing grade.
This article, authored by Christopher M. Brubaker, appears in the November 2010 Personal Injury Supplement of The Legal Intelligencer.
Since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act this past July, there has been much confusion and speculation about its possible impact on commercial real estate.
When Melvyn Weiss entered a plea of guilty to racketeering charges last week, many business lawyers considered it as justice long overdue. Viewed in the light of two recent filings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, however, Weiss' prosecution may be just the opening salvo in the Justice Department's campaign to hold lawyers accountable for the advice they give.
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.
