Our firm focuses on the representation of plaintiffs on a contingency fee basis in complex commercial litigation, including: merger and acquisition cases, securities fraud, consumer fraud, and shareholder derivative actions.
Since 2011, our firm has recovered over $350 million on behalf of our clients, together with co-counsel.
Our focus on the representation of plaintiffs and use of contingent fee arrangements prompts us to litigate differently from firms using the traditional hourly model. We invite you to read more about our approach below, and we would be glad to answer any questions about how we work or discuss a potential matter.
#1 Drive the Case
Our guiding principle is to drive cases to resolution – through trial or otherwise – as rapidly as practicable. Real value in any litigation comes from the threat of an adverse decision, either at the preliminary injunction or summary judgment stages or after trial. Our job as plaintiff’s counsel is to make that prospect real and present to the defense through the focused and sustained application of resources and effort.
In addition to accelerating resolution, intensive litigation improves outcomes. With time, documents go missing, the claim that “I don’t recall” becomes more plausible, key witnesses disappear, defendants go bankrupt. None favors the party with the burden of proof and need to collect a judgment.
Maintaining a high litigation tempo also preserves the plaintiff’s initiative and momentum – factors that are hard to quantify, but exert a strong influence on how both sides view the case and its value. The pace of litigation also affects the Court’s perspective. Cases that are litigated with urgency are treated accordingly; cases that linger do not age well – think milk, not wine – and run afoul the judicial imperative to maintain a current docket.
#2 Draft Complaints Thoughtfully
The initial complaint is a crucial document: it frames the case, communicates the commitment of effort and quality of counsel, and sets the tone for the litigation.
The quality of the complaint also strongly influences whether the case survives the first major hurdle in most litigation – the motion to dismiss. While court rules permit multiple attempts to plead a claim, judges have grown increasingly reluctant to allow multiple bites at the apple, and are often overtly skeptical of follow-on complaints that add new allegations to fix earlier deficiencies. Even with a sympathetic judge, an initial complaint that fails to pass muster typically sets the litigation back by a year or more, a major blow to the case’s momentum.
For a rushed complaint, the motion to dismiss is a bullet to be dodged. For a well-drafted complaint that tells a simple but compelling story, the motion is an opportunity: it permits the plaintiff to introduce the case to the judge on the plaintiff’s terms, and prevailing on the motion validates the plaintiff’s claims, creates “law of the case,” and establishes a roadmap for subsequent litigation.
#3 Tell a Simple Story
We believe that cases ultimately rise or fall on the ability to tell a simple story about the wrong done to the plaintiff. Often, it is the client who is in the best position to tell that story, identify and address weaknesses in their own case, and react to the narratives developed by counsel. To that end, we actively solicit and encourage clients’ involvement on an ongoing basis — to help tell their story — by sharing draft court submissions and information gathered through discovery (subject to any restrictions under any protective order).
#4 Expect a Trial
We gear our litigation strategy for trial. This requires carefully planning out the elements of the proof required at trial, which impacts choices made during discovery such as the documents we request and the witnesses we seek to depose. We believe the most important benefit of anticipating a trial, however, is one of mindset: the expectation that work will eventually be reflected in a presentation to judge or jury alters the way we manage a case.
#5 Pick Our Battles
While litigation is inherently adversarial, we work hard to avoid unnecessary disputes. As litigators, we believe our clients’ interests and the good of the case are best served by staying focused on the merits and avoiding non-essential conflicts that delay resolution, divert resources and draw attention away from the wrongdoing by defendants at the heart of the case.