"One of 10

Best Lawyers

in New York"

-New York Super Lawyers 2020™

“Joseph’s New York firm has a definable ‘sweet spot’; big-dollar complex financial transactions involving the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and securities claims, credit default swaps and derivatives—a veritable chocolate box of the financial cases of the past decade.” –National Law Journal

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Practices

JHA guides and supports clients by integrating effective case strategy with seamless delivery. The disputes JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

View Our Practices

Attorneys

Roman Asudulayev

Associate

Gregory P. Joseph

Partner

Samuel N. Fraidin

Counsel

Peter R. Jerdee

Partner

Mara Leventhal

Partner

Pamela Jarvis

Ethics Counsel

Gila S. Singer

Associate

Christopher J. Stanley

Partner

Sandra M. Lipsman

Partner

Hon. Robert E. Gerber

Of Counsel (USBJ Retired)

Rachel M. Cherington

Partner

Benjamin A. Taylor

Associate

Honey L. Kober

Of Counsel

Courtney A. Solomon

Partner

Benjamin H. Albert

Partner

Meet all of our attorneys

Latest from our complex lit blog

 

Rule 37 Sanctions — Default Judgment — Three Purposes of Rule 37 Sanctions — Oral Order Sufficient under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) — Consideration of Lesser Sanctions Need Not Explicit, Particularly If Misconduct Is Egregious — Recidivism Appropriately Considered

Read more
 

Rule 37 Sanctions — Default Judgment — Death Penalty Sanctions: 4 Factors: (1) Willfulness, Bad Faith Or Fault (e.g., Flouting Court Order), (2) Client, Not Counsel, Responsible, (3) Substantial Prejudice, (4) Lesser Sanctions Insufficient — For Non-Death Penalty Sanctions, Sanction Merely Need Be Just And Related to The Particular Claim at Issue — List of Sanctions in Rule 37 Is Not Exhaustive

Read more
 

Rule 11 Sanctions — Appealability: Mere Criticism in Order Separately Imposing Sanctions Is Unappealable — Due Process Satisfied by Order Giving Clear Notice of Specific Conduct to Be Considered for Sanctions Even If Words “Show Cause” (Rule 11(c)(3)) Missing — Firm Appearing on Signature Page “Present[s]” Brief to Court (Unless Merely “Secondary” Counsel) — When Counsel Appears Unopposed, A Stricter Standard of Candor Applies — Mischaracterization of Submitted Document Sanctionable — Good Quotes: “Rule 11 Is Not A Strict Liability Provision” / “The Argument Is Like The Thirteenth Chime of A Clock: You Not Only Know It’s Wrong, But It Causes You to Wonder About Everything You Heard Before” / “Pursuit of Sanctions by a Court Can Alter Its More Customary Relationship with Counsel and Its Role As Neutral Decisionmaker”

Read more
View Our Complex Lit Blog