New York Attorneys 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.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys 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.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Gregory P. Joseph

Partner

Email:

gjoseph@jhany.com

Phone:

+1 (212) 407-1210

Fax:

+1 (212) 407-1280
Download VCard
New York Attorneys 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.

profile

Gregory P. Joseph is a past President of the American College of Trial Lawyers (2010-11), Chair of the 60,000-member Section of Litigation of the American Bar Association (1997-98), and—by appointment of the Chief Justice—a member of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence (1993-99). He is Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Supreme Court Historical Society.

One United States District opinion says of Mr. Joseph: “Greg is one of this country’s leading litigators (a few years ago he served as chairman of the Section on Litigation of the American Bar Association) and is an extraordinarily prolific author in addition to maintaining an active law practice.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has described him as “the leading authority on sanctions law”. In polls of lawyers he is regularly voted one of the top 10 lawyers in New York City and one of the top 10, 25, or 100 litigators in the United States or the world.

Mr. Joseph is the author of Sanctions: The Federal Law of Litigation Abuse (6th ed. 2020; Supp. 2021), which is cited in the Advisory Committee Notes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Civil RICO: A Definitive Guide (5th ed. 2018), which the Harvard Law Review says “meticulously analyzes the decisions” (106 Harv. L. Rev.1376) and Fortune calls “the leading treatise on RICO” (Sept. 29, 2008 at 135); and Modern Visual Evidence (1984; Supp. 2018), which has been described as “the authoritative text” on that subject (Communication Arts, Sept./Oct. 1995 at 45). He has written more than 100 articles in professional journals. His books and articles have been cited in more than 300 judicial opinions, 500 professional journals and treatises, and in the Advisory Committee Notes to the Federal Rules of Evidence and Civil Procedure. He serves on the Editorial Board of Moore’s Federal Practice (3d ed.).

He has lectured for the Federal Judicial Center and National Judicial College; at the Judicial Conferences of the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits, U.S. Tax Court and U.S. Court of Claims; and at more than 200 professional conferences. He is an honors graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School (1975) and a member of the Council of the American Law Institute.

Recommendations

  • One of Top 10 Lawyers in New York City – NEW YORK SUPER LAWYERS™; 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014
  • One of top 30 litigators in the US (2017) BEST OF THE BEST USA™
  • One of Top 100 Trial Lawyers in US- Benchmark Litigation™; 2016 and 2014
  • “The leading authority on sanctions law” – Sec. Nat’l Bank v. Jones Day, 800 F.3d 936, 944 (8th Cir. 2015)
  • Best Litigation Law Firm –European CEO Awards 2014™; 2014
  • Best Litigation Department USA and Best Dispute Resolution Firm USA –WORLD FINANCE LEGAL AWARDS 2014™; 2014
  • One of top 30 litigators in the world – BEST OF THE BEST™; 2013
  • Best Lawyer USA 2012, and Best Dispute Resolution Firm USA 2013 and 2012–WORLD FINANCE LEGAL AWARDS™
  • Lawyer of the Year 2013- Arbitration – New York City – BEST LAWYERS™
  • One of the top 25 litigators in the world – BEST OF THE BEST 2011™
  • National Law Journal Profile of Firm, May 23, 2011 Taking on Big Financial Cases that the Big Firms Won’t
  • Lawyer of the Year – Bet-the-Company-Litigation – New York BEST LAWYERS™; 2011

Citations

Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 652 n.1 (1992)

Advisory Committee Note (2000) to Federal Rule of Evidence 701

Advisory Committee Note (1993) to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11

  • United States v. Sterling, 2019 WL 994520 (2d Cir. Mar. 1, 2019)
  • Empire Merchs., LLC v. Reliable Churchill LLP, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 24393, 2018 WL 4086974 (2d Cir. Aug. 28, 2018)
  • D’Addario v. D’Addario, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22472, 2018 WL 3848501 (2d Cir. Aug. 14, 2018)
  • Clientron Corp. v. Devon IT, Inc., 2018 WL 3293212 (3d Cir. July 5, 2018)
  • JTR Enters., LLC v. Columbian Emeralds, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11248 (11th Cir. June 23, 2017)
  • N. Ill. Telecom, Inc. v. PNC Bank, 850 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2017)
  • United States v. Afyare, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4173 (6th Cir. March 2, 2016)
  • Security Nat’l Bank of Sioux City, IA v. Abbott Labs., 800 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2015)
  • Moore v. Citgo Refining & Chem. Co.,735 F.3d 309 (5th Cir.2013)
  • In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2010)
  • In re Girardi (Franco v. Dow Chemical Co.), 611 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2010)
  • Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Nosek, 609 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2010).
  • In re: Schaefer Salt Recovery, Inc., 542 F.3d 90 (3d Cir. 2008)
  • United States v. Jackson, 473 F.3d 660 (6th Cir. 2007)
  • Steinert v. Winn Group, Inc., 440 F.3d 1214 (10th 2006)
  • United States v. Woolfolk, 399 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 2005)
  • In re Pennie & Edmonds LLP., 323 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2003) (dissent)
  • Antonious v. Spalding & Evenflo Cos, 281 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
  • In re Prudential Ins. Co. Am. Sales Practice Litig. Actions, 278 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2002)
  • United States v. Talao, 222 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2000)
  • Pacific Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2000)
  • Wakefield v. Visalus, Inc., 2019 WL 1411127 (D. Or. Mar. 27, 2019)
  • In-Q, LLC. v. Prolacta Bioscience, Inc., 2019 WL 637703 (D. Or. Feb. 14, 2019)
  • Wronko v. Martin, 2018 WL 4562462 (D.N.J. Sept. 24, 2018)
  • Hunter v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2018 WL 4352823 (E.D. La. Sept. 12, 2018)
  • Cameau v Nat’l Recovery Agency, Inc., 2018 WL 4522104 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2018)
  • Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare & Benefit Fund v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 2018 WL 1631300 (D.R.I. Mar. 31, 2018)
  • Regions Bank v. Kaplan, 2018 WL 1833045 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2018)
  • Synopsys, Inc. v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130070 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2017)
  • Diamond Consortium, Inc. v Manookian, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122625 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2017)
  • Joint Stock Company Channel One Russia Worldwide v. Informir LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165702 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2017)
  • Sawyer v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86609 (S.D. Tex. May 18, 2017)
  • Empire Merchants, LLC v. Reliable Churchill LLLP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186669 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2017)
  • United States v. Cain, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72263 (E.D. Wash. May 11, 2017)
  • Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Hartford Iron & Metal, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64514 (N.D. Ind. April 28, 2017)
  • Level 3 Commc’ns, LLC v. United States, 2017 U.S. Claims LEXIS 202 (Ct. Fed. Claims Mar. 16, 2017)
  • Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Hartford Iron & Metal, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1187 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 4, 2017)
  • Security Alarm Financing Enters., LP v. Alarm Protection Tech., LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168311 (D. Alaska Dec. 6, 2016)
  • Deutsch v. Henry, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168987 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2016)
  • Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135219 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2016)
  • Jupiter Aluminum Corp. v. Sabaitis, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123843 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 13, 2016)
  • DR Distributors, LLC v. 21 Century Smoking, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99930 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 1, 2016)
  • Aliev v. Borukhov, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88856 (E.D.N.Y. July 8, 2016)
  • Gingras v. Rosette, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66833 (D. Vt. May 18, 2016)
  • Adams v. U.S. Auto. Ass’n, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50380 (W.D. Ark. Apr. 14, 2016)
  • Rib City Franchising, LLC v. Bowen, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149797 (D. Utah Nov. 3, 2015)
  • Nilon v. Natural-Immunogenics Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146315 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2015)
  • Rogler v. Fotos, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144069 (D. Md. Oct. 22, 2015)
  • Jiangmen Kinwai Furniture Decoration Co. Ltd. v IHFC Properties, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138998 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 13, 2015)
  • Tajonera v. Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181998 (E.D. La. Sept. 30, 2015)
  • Michael v. Boutwell, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136838 (N.D. Miss. Oct. 7, 2015)
  • In re Aetna UCR Litig., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84600 (D.N.J. June 30, 2015)
  • Nesbitt v. Regas, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35552 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2015)
  • Howard v. Offshore Liftboats, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26629 (E.D. La. Mar. 4, 2015)
  • Tajonera v. Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26025 (E.D. La. Mar. 3, 2015)
  • United States v. Smith, 277 F. Supp. 3d 405 (W.D.N.Y. 2015)
  • Pichardo v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10722 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2015)
  •  Aguayo v. AMCO Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160244 (D.N.M. Oct. 31, 2014)
  • Progressive Waste Solutions of La., Inc. v. Lafayette City Parish Consolidated Gov’t, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150199 (W.D. La. Oct. 22, 2014)
  • Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation v. Harley, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99019 (W.D. Pa. July 22, 2014)
  • Paice, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95043 (D. Md. June 27, 2014)
  • DeWitt Ins., Inc. v. Horton, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72384 (E.D. Mo. May 28, 2014)
  • Marino v. Usher, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69521 (E.D. Pa. May 21, 2014)
  • Havens v. Maritime Commc’ns/Land Mobile, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68786 (D.N.J. May 20, 2014)
  • Cardona v. Mohabir, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62637 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2014)
  • Perkumpulan Investor Crisis Center Dressel – WBG v. Wong, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33797 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 14, 2014)
  • Beauchamp v. City of Dixon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29453 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2014)
  • Rahbarian v. Cawley, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171123 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013)
  • Johnson v. BAE Sys., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170092 (D.D.C. Nov. 27, 2013)
  • Meathe v. Ret, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166999 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 25, 2013)
  • Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, 979 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (M.D. Fla. 2013)
  • Fuller v. Unum Grp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160074 (D. Me. Nov. 8, 2013):
  • First Mariner Bank v. Resolution Law Group, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153299 (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2013)
  • Dixon v. Midland Mortg. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137279 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2013)
  • Anderson v. Bd. of School Directors of Millcreek Township, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116082 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2013)
  • Mega Concrete, Inc. v. Smith, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98660 (E.D. Pa. July 15, 2013)
  • Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87040 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2013)
  • Target Corp. v. LCH Pavement Consultants, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80306 (D. Minn. June 7, 2013)
  • Philos Techs., Inc. v. Philos & D, Inc., 943 F. Supp. 2d 880 (N.D. Ill.2013)
  • Animal Welfare Institute v. Feld Entm’t, Inc., 944 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013)
  • Hammary v. Soles, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40033 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 22, 2013)
  • Gerke v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 289 F.R.D. 316 (D. Or. 2013)
  • Just Film, Inc. v. Merchant Servs., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173455 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2012)
  • Martinez v. Garcia, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158220 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2012)
  • Goesel v. Boley Int’l (HK) Ltd,, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152524 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2012)
  • Dorsett v. County of Nassau, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79990 (E.D.N.Y. June 7, 2012)
  • Dorsett v. County of Nassau, 283 F.R.D. 85 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2012)
  • Sample v. Qwest Commc’ns Co. LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70927 (D. Ariz. May 22, 2012)
  • State ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62089 (S.D. Miss. May 3, 2012)
  • Rubloff Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SuperValu, Inc., 863 F. Supp. 2d 732 (N.D. Ill. 2012)
  • Cameron v. Rohn, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18986 (D.V.I. Feb. 14, 2012)
  • Fuerst v. Fuerst, 832 F. Supp. 2d 210 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)
  • Bletas v. Deluca, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133132 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2011)
  • Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118529 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2011)
  • Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117607 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2011)
  • Symetra Life Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Settlement Purchasers, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116966 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2011)
  • Puerto Rico Am. Ins. Co. v. Burgos, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112378 (D. P.R. Sept. 30, 2011)
  • Beecher v. Riverdale Riding Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86654 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2011)
  • Emess Capital, LLC v. Rothstein, 2011 WL 13214302 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2011)
  • Sterling Nat’l Mortg. Co. v. Infinite Title Solutions, LLC, 2011 WL 13220625 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2011)
  • Dearstyne v. Mazzuca, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158356 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2011)
  • Mega Concrete, Inc. v. Smith, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30789 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 2011)
  • Adams v. N.Y. State Educ. Dep’t, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129510 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2010)
  • Midtronics, Inc. v. Aurora Performance Prods. LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109661 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 14, 2010)
  • United States v. Crawford, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97538 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 17, 2010)
  • Crest Construction II, Inc. v. On Time Auto, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88798 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 27, 2010)
  • D’Onofrio v. SFX Sports Group, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86711 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2010)
  • Allen v. Devine, 726 F. Supp. 2d 240 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)
  • Carson v. Vernon Township, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73620 (D.N.J. July 21, 2010)
  • Merritt v. Lake Jovita Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 2010 WL 11507746 (M.D. Fla. May 11, 2010)
  • Meyer Intellectual Properties Limited v. Bodum, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54567 (N.D. Ill. June 3, 2010)
  • Braun Builders, Inc. v. Kancherlapalli, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48691 (E.D. Mich. May 18, 2010)
  • In re Xe Servs. Alien Tort Litig., 665 F. Supp. 2d 569 (E.D. Va. 2009)
  • Jones v Reid, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100298 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2009)
  • Pritchard v. Dow Agro Sciences, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53905 (W.D. Pa. June 25, 2009)
  • Asymmetrx, Inc. v. Dako Denmark A/S, 626 F. Supp. 2d 182 (D. Mass. 2009)
  • Gross v. Waywell, 628 F. Supp. 2d 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
  • Arivella v. Lucent Techs., Inc.,, 623 F. Supp. 2d 164 (D. Mass. 2009)
  • Marlow v. v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43502 (D. Colo. May 12, 2009)
  • Colliton v. Morgan, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39370 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2009)
  • Hunt v. Dart, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36710 (N.D. Ill. April 30, 2009)
  • Colliton v. Donnelly, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26072 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2009)
  • CA, Inc. v. Simple.com, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 2d 196 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)
  • Post v. St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co., 593 F. Supp. 2d 766 (E.D. Pa. 2009)
  • TEGG Corp. v. Beckstrom Elec. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100081 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 2008)
  • Gateway Senior Housing, Ltd. v. MMA Financial, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98770 and 109947 (E.D.Tex. Dec. 4, 2008)
  • Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., 253 F.R.D. 354 (D. Md. 2008)
  • New England Surfaces v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 558 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D. Me. 2008)
  • Byrd v. Teater, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28441 (E.D. Cal. April 8, 2008)
  • Winters v. Stemberg, 529 F. Supp. 2d 237 (D. Mass. 2008)
  • Waters v. City of Chicago, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95159 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2007)
  • Brown v Sweeney, 526 F. Supp. 2d 126 (D. Mass. 2007)
  • Wolters Kluwer Fin. Servs. Inc. v. Scivantage, 525 F. Supp. 2d 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)
  • Bowers v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75064 (W.D. Va. Oct. 9, 2007)
  • Mercfado-Salinas v. Bart Enters. Int’l, Ltd., 2007 WL 9702171 (D. P.R. Sept. 24, 2007)
  • PennMont Secs. v. Frucher, 502 F. Supp. 2d 443 (E.D. Pa. 2007)
  • Abdelhamid v. Altria Group, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54888 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2007)
  • Van Stuyvesant v. Conway, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99032 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2007)
  • Morris v. Wachovia Secs., Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52675 (E.D. Va. July 20, 2007)
  • In Re Enron Corp. Secs., Deriv. & “ERISA” Litig., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98619 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2007)
  • In re September 11th Liab. Ins. Coverage Cases, 243 F.R.D. 114 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)
  • Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007)
  • Lao v. Wickes Furniture Co., 455 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (C.D. Cal. 2006)
  • Barden v. Hurd Millwork Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63926 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 5, 2006)
  • Obifuele v. 1300, LLC, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60043 (D. Md. Aug. 23, 2006)
  • Kathrein v Siegel, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33570 (N.D. Ill. May 16, 2006)
  • Royal Farms, Inc. v. Global Tropical Fresh Fruit Corp., 2006 WL 8437472 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2006)
  • Lucas v Spellings, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 422 (D.D.C. Jan. 10, 2006)
  • Roman v. Delgado Altieri, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34691 (D.P.R. Nov. 22, 2005)
  • Dunkin’ Donuts Inc. v. N.A.S.T., Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16703 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2005)
  • Atkins v. Fischer, 232 F.R.D. 116 (D.D.C. 2005)
  • United States v. Leaver, 358 F. Supp. 2d 255 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
  • United States v. Sharif, 343 F. Supp. 2d 610 (E.D. Mich. 2005)
  • Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Merck & Co., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19135 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2004)
  • Northwestern Human Servs. v. Panaccio, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19147 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 24, 2004)
  • Joseph Giganti Veritas Media Group, Inc. v. Gen-X Strategies, Inc., 222 F.R.D. 299 (E.D. Va. 2004)
  • Healthguard of Lancaster, Inc. v. Gartenberg, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4437 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 5, 2004)
  • Young v. City of Providence, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1860 (D.R.I. Feb. 11, 2004)
  • Anderson v. Ayling, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23694 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2003)
  • United States v. Ostroff, 340 F. Supp. 2d 362, 366-67 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
  • Jeffreys v. Rossi, 275 F. Supp. 2d 463, 479, 482 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
  • Carlton Group, Ltd. v. Tobin, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13332 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2003)
  • Gatz v. Ponsoldt, 271 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (D. Neb. 2003)
  • Dunkin’ Donuts, Inc. v. N.A.S.T., Inc., 266 F. Supp. 2d 826 (N.D. Ill. 2003)
  • Zila Swab Tech., Inc. v. Van Dyke, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5156 (N.D. III. March 31, 2003)
  • Manufacturing Admin & Admin. & Mgmt. Sys. v. ICT Group, Inc., 212 F.R.D. 110 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)
  • Gregory v. Oliver, 2002 U.S Dist. LEXIS 24730 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 27, 2002)
  • E.T.S Enters. v. Devon Energy Corp., 2002 U.S Dist. LEXIS 20269 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2002)
  • Stamford Computer Group v. Metro Opera Ass’n, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14750 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2002)
  • Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. Intercounty Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11915 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 2002)
  • Arnlund v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 199 F. Supp. 2d 461 (N.D. Va. 2002)
  • Long v. U.S. D.O.J., 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7776 (D.D.C. April 30, 2002)
  • Pennar Software Corp. v. Fortune 500 Sys., Ltd., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18432 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2001)
  • Regency Communications Inc. v. Auger, 160 F. Supp. 2d 36 (D.D.C. 2001)
  • Stevenson v. Union Pacific R.R., 204 F.R.D. 425 (E.D. Ark. 2001)
  • Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J., Inc v. Philip Morris, Inc., 113 F. Supp. 2d 345 (E.D.N.Y. 2000)
  • Smith v. Transducer Tech., Inc., 197 F.R.D. 260 (D.V.I. 2000)
  • Poole v. Textron, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 494 (D.Md. 2000)
  • MJS Las Croabas Props., Inc. v. FDIC, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 498 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Feb. 17, 2016)
  • In re MF Global Holdings Ltd., 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 2181 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2013)
  • In re Brent, 458 B.R. 444 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2011)
  • In re Schaefer Salt Recovery, Inc., 444 B.R. 286 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2011)
  • In re Green, 422 B.R. 469 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)
  • Oliner v. Kontrabecki (In re Cent. European Indus. Dev. Co., LLC), 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 639 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2009)
  • American Exp. Travel Related Servs. v. Vinhnee (In re Vinhnee), 336 B.R. 437 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2005)
  • In re Jazz Photo Corp., 312 B.R. 524 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2004)
  • Fairbanks v. State, 2019 WL 1374382 (Ind. Mar. 27, 2019)
  • State v. Tucker, 2018 WL 4179079 (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018)
  • Landry’s, Inc. v. Animal Legal Defense Fund, 566 S.W.3d 41 (Tex. Ct. App. 2018) (Jewell, J., concurring and dissenting)
  • State v. Gray, 2017 La. App. LEXIS 1182 (La. Ct. App. June 28, 2017)
  • Goben v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2016 Ky. LEXIS 630 (Ky. Sup. Ct. Dec. 15, 2016)
  • Matter of Cranor, 2016 N.C. App. LEXIS 567 (N.C. Ct. App. May 17, 2016)
  • Matter of the Paternity of HLG, 2016 Wyo. LEXIS 38 (Wyo. Sup. Ct. Mar. 11, 2016)
  • State v. Lopez, 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1915 (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2014)
  • In re: Amendments to the Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions – Civil (Second), 2014 Okla. LEXIS 22 (Okla. Sup. Ct. Mar. 24, 2014)
  • State v. Small, 351 Wis. 2d 46, 839 N.W.2d 160 (2013)
  • State v. Laine, 2012 Wash. App. LEXIS 935 (Wash. Ct. App. April 24, 2012)
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hill, 722 S.E.2d 797 (N.C. Ct. App.), review denied, 336 N.C. 226, 726 S.E.2d 837 (2012)
  • Cory v. Straub Int’l, 2012 Kan. App. Unpub. LEXIS 10 (Kan. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2012)
  • Seidner v. Town of Oak Island, 2011 N.C. App. LEXIS 2403 (N.C. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2011)
  • Johnson v. Mississippi, 68 So. 3d 1239 (Miss. Sup. Ct. 2011)
  • Reid Road Municipal Utility Dist. No. 2 v. Speedy Stop Food Stores, Ltd., 337 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. Sup. Ct. 2011)
  • Owensby v. Estate of Phillips, 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 2302 (N.C. App. Dec. 7, 2010)
  • In re Will of Durham, 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 1448 (N.C. App. Aug. 3, 2010)
  • Persis Nova Constr., Inc. v. Edwards, 195 N.C. App. 55, 671 S.E. 2d 23 (N.C. App. 2009)
  • People v. Hawthorne, 2007 Mich. App. LEXIS 888 (Mich. App. March 29, 2007)
  • Ex Parte Hamilton, 970 So. 2d 285 (Ala. Sup. Ct. Dec. 22, 2006)
  • Commonwealth v. Serge, 586 Pa. 671, 685, 896 A.2d 1170, 1178 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 2006) Ex Parte Walker, 928 So. 2d 259 (Ala. Sup. Ct. 2005)
  • Jenkins v. State, 912 So. 2d 165 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005)
  • Adams v. Bank United of Tex. F.S.B., 167 N.C. App. 395, 606 S.E.2d 149 (2004)
  • Davis v. Durham Mental Health/Development Disabilities/Substance Abuse Area Auth., 165 N.C. App.100, 598 S.E.2d 237 (2004)
  • U.S. Bank N. A. v. Scott, 673 N.W.2d 646, 656 (S.D. Sup. Ct. 2003)
  • State v. Tollardo, 134 N.M. 430, 77 P.3d 1023 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 81 P.3d 554 (N.M. Sup. Ct. 2003)
  • People v. Stewart, 55 P.3d 107 (Colo. Sup. Ct. 2002)
  • Ramsey County v. Stewart, 643 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. Sup. Ct. 2002)
  • State v. Guthrie, 627 N.W.2d 401 (S.D. Sup. Ct. 2001)
  • Caldwell v. Cummings, 33 P. 3d 1138 (Wyo. Sup. Ct. 2001)
  • Gosser v. Commonwealth, 31 S.W.3d 897 (Ky. Sup. Ct. 2000)
  • Cooper v. Amerada Hess Corp., 129 N.M. 710, 13 P.3d 68 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000)
  • Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 384, 529 S.E.2d 528 (S.C. Sup. Ct. 2000)
  • Bataller-Grau, Segui-Mas, Vercher-Moll & Stempel, Constructing More Reliable Law and Policy: The Potential Benefits of the Underused Delphi Method, 87 UMKC L. Rev. 919 (2019)
  • Shelton, Discovery of Expert Witnesses: Amending Rule 26(B)(4)(E) to Limit Expert Fee Shifting And Reduce Litigation Abuses, 49 Seton Hall L. Rev. 475 (2018)
  • Marrero, Mission to Dismiss: A Dismissal of Rule 12(B)(6) and The Retirement of Twombly/Iqbal, 40 Cardozo L. Rev. 1 (2018)
  • Stempel, Asymmetry and Adequacy in Discovery Incentives: The Discouraging Implications of Haeger v. Goodyear, 51 Akron L. Rev. 639 (2018)
  • Lampley, Something Old And Something New: Exploring The Recent Amendments To The Federal Rules Of Evidence, 57 Washburn L. J. 519 (2018)
  • Karnow, The Opinion of Machines, 19 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 136 (2017)
  • Chaffee, Securities Regulation in Virtual Space, 74 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1387 (2017)
  • Engstrom, Jacobins at Justice: The (Failed) Class Action Revolution of 1978 and The Puzzle of American Procedural Political Economy, 165 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1531 (2017)
  • Abide, “An Inquiry Reasonable under the Circumstances”: Applying Rule 11 to Local Counsel, 85 Miss. L.J. 1649 (2017)
  • Margiotta, Note: Affirming Firm Sanctions: The Authority To Sanction Law Firms Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 86 Fordham L. Rev. 265 (2017)
  • Hall, Silence Is Golden, Unless You’re Getting Billed for It: MJS Las Croabas Properties, Inc. and Punishing Law Firms When Their Attorneys Prolong Litigation, 62 Vill. L. Rev. 41 (2017)
  • Parness, Lost ESI Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 20 SMU Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 25 (2017)
  • Richmond, Alternative Sanctions in Litigation, 47 N.M .L. Rev. 209 (2017)
  • League, Whether You Like It Or Not Your “Likes” Are Out: An Analysis Of Nonverbal Internet Conduct In The Hearsay Context, 68 S.C. L. Rev. 939 (2017)
  • Engstrom, Retaliatory RICO and the Puzzle of Fraudulent Claiming, 115 Mich. L. Rev. 639 (2017)
  • Hoffheimer, George C. Cochran: Constant Constitutionalist, 85 Miss. L.J. 965 (2017)
  • Chapman, Removing Recalcitrant County Clerks in Kentucky, 105 Ky. L. J. 261 (2016-2017)
  • Cook, Mutiny On The Fee Bounty: Redrafting Fee Clauses in the Age of Trump, 17 U.C. Davis Bus. L.J. 57 (2016)
  • Winn, A Firm Law for Sanctions: Taking a Stance on Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1927 Should Apply to Law Firms, 73 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 2135 (2016)
  • Shipley, Discouraging Frivolous Copyright Infringement Claims: Fee Shifting Under Rule 11 Or 28 U.S.C. § 1927 As An Alternative To Awarding Attorney’s Fees Under Section 505 Of The Copyright Act, 24 J. Intell. Prop. L. 33 (2016)
  • Rosenbaum, The RICO Trend in Class Action Warfare, 102 Iowa L. Rev. 165 (2016)
  • Forty-Seventh Selected Bibliography on Computers, Technology & the Law, 42 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. (2016)
  • Godwin, Judicial Notice And The Internet: Defining A Source Whose Accuracy Cannot Reasonably Be Questioned, 46 Cumb. L. Rev. 219 (2015-16)
  • Burbank and Farhang, Through A Glass Starkly: Civil Procedure Re-Assessed: Celebrating The Scholarship Of Stephen Subrin: Federal Court Rulemaking and Litigation Reform: An Institutional Approach, 15 Nev. L.J. 1559 (2015)
  • O’Brien, Analog Solutions: E-Discovery Spoliation Sanctions and the Proposed Amendments to FRCP 37(e), 65 Duke L.J. 151 (2015)
  • Gross, A Safe Harbor From Spoliation Sanctions: Can An Amended Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 37(e) Protect Producing Parties? 2015 Colum. Bus. L. Rev. 705 (2015)
  • Weitz, A Necessary Supplement: Reinvigorating Civil RICO’s Securities Fraud Predicate, 21 Widener L. Rev. 27 (2015)
  • Hamburg, A Broken Clock: Fixing New York’s Speedy Trial Statute, 48 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 223 (2015)
  • Stipanowich, Reflections on the State and Future of Commercial Arbitration: Challenges, Opportunities, Proposals, 25 Am. Rev. Int’l Arbitration. 297 (2014)
  • Osentoski, Out of Bounds: Why Federal Rule of Evidence 701 Lay Opinion Testimony Needs to Be Restricted to Testimony Based on Personal First-Hand Perception, 2014 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1999 (2014)
  • Gordon, Of Gangs and Gaggles: Can a Corporation be Part of an Association-in-Fact RICO Enterprise?
  • Linguistic, Historical, and Rhetorical Perspectives, 16 U. Pa. J. Bus. L. 973 (2014)
  • Burbank & Farhang, Litigation Reform: An Institutional Approach, 162 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1543 (2014)
  • McDonald, Authenticating Digital Evidence from the Cloud, 2014 Army Law. 40
  • Robertson, Recent Developments in Admiralty and Maritime Law at the National Level and in the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, 38 Tul. Mar. L. J. 419 (2014)
  • Imwinkelried, The Gordian Knot Of The Treatment Of Secondhand Facts Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 703 Governing The Admissibility Of Expert Opinions: Another Conflict Between Logic And Law, 3 U. Denv. Crim. L. Rev. 1 (2013)
  • Foster, Bucking The Trend: Why California Should Reject the Conventional Wisdom on Civil Litigation Reform, 36 T. Jefferson L. Rev. 105 (2013)
  • Ceglinski, Admitting Animations: Applied Psychology Research As A Call For Improved Guidance In Assessing The Prejudicial Impact Of Computer-Generated Animations, 6 Drexel L. Rev. 177 (2013)
  • Mullenix, Class Actions Shrugged: Mass Actions and the Future of Aggregate Litigation, 32 Rev. Litig. 591 (2013)
  • Fitzsimmons, Protect Yourself: Why The Eleventh Circuit’s Approach To Sanctions For Protective Order Violations Fails Litigants, 48 Ga. L. Rev. 269 (2013)
  • Barger, Challenging Judicial Notice of Facts on the Internet under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, 48 U.S.F. L. Rev. 43 (2013)
  • Montecuollo, Making the Best of an Imperfect World: An Argument in Favor of Judicial Discretion to Reduce § 1927 Sanction Awards, 62 Kan. L. Rev. 223 (2013)
  • Imwinkelried, The Epistemological Trend in The Evolution of the Law of Expert Testimony: A Scrutiny at Once Broader, Narrower, and Deeper, 47 Ga. L. Rev. 863 (2013)
  • Campbell, Unprotected Class: Five Decisions, Five Justices, And Wholesale Change To Class Action Law, 13 Wyo. L. Rev. 463 (2013)
  • Mark, RICO’s Extraterritoriality, 50 Am. Bus. L.J. 543 (2013)
  • Imwinkelried, The Need for Truly Systemic Analysis of Proposals for the Reform of Both Pretrial Practice and Evidentiary Rules: The Role of the Law of Unintended Consequences in “Litigation” Reform, 32 Rev. Litig. 201 (2013)
  • Carlson, Symposium on Evidence Reform: Article: The Curious Case of Differing Literary Emphases: The Contrast Between the Use of Scientific Publications at Pretrial Daubert Hearings and at Trial, 47 Ga. L. Rev. 837 (2013)
  • Jarvey, Boilerplate Discovery Objections: How They Are Used, Why They Are Wrong, And What We Can Do About Them, 61 Drake L. Rev. 913 (2013)
  • Grimm, Bergstrom & O’Toole-Loureiro, Authentication of Social Media Evidence, 36 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 433 (2013)
  • Edwards, Admissions Online: Statements of a Party Opponent in the Internet Age, 65 Okla. L. Rev. 533 (2013)
  • Ressler, Removing Removal’s Unanimity Rule, 50 Hous. L. Rev. 1391 (2013)
  • Grimm & Yellin, A Pragmatic Approach to Discovery Reform: How Small Changes Can Make a Big Difference in Civil Discovery, 64 S.C. L. Rev. 495 (2013)
  • Nybo, A Three-Ring Circus: The Exploitation of Civil RICO, How Treble Damages Caused It, and Whether Rule 11 Can Remedy The Abuse, 18 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 19 (2013)
  • Norton, Woodard & Cleveland, Fifty Shades of Sanctions: What Hath The Goldsmith’s Apprentice Wrought?, 64 S.C. L. Rev. 459 (2013)
  • Burbank, Symposium Honoring Professor Edward Cooper: Thinking, Big and Small, 46 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 527 (2013)
  • Marcus, Symposium Honoring Professor Edward Cooper: Shoes That Did Not Drop, 46 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 637 (2013)
  • Endo, The Propriety of Considering an Attorney’s Ability to Pay under § 1927, 61 Drake L. Rev. 291 (2013)
  • Imwinkelried, Protecting the Attorney-Client Privilege in Business Negotiations: Would the Application of the Subject Matter Waiver Doctrine Really Drive Attorneys from the Bargaining Table?, 51 Duq. L. Rev. 167 (2013)
  • Fox, The Return of “Voodoo Information”: A Call to Resist a Heightened Authentication Standard For Evidence Derived from Social Networking Websites, 62 Cath. U.L. Rev. 197 (2012)
  • Lee, Private Civil Remedies: A Viable Tool for Guest Worker Empowerment, 46 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 31 (2012)
  • Crooks, Fair Labor Fraud: The Peculiar Interplay of Civil RICO and the Federal Minimum Wage Act, 112 Colum. L. Rev. 2153 (2012)
  • Imwinkelried, The Validity of the 2010 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 Amendment Governing the Waiver of Work Product Protection: Is the Work Product Doctrine an Evidentiary Privilege?, 39 U. Dayton L. Rev. 3 (2012)
  • Richmond, Sanctioning Clients for Lawyers’ Misconduct—Problems of Agency and Equity,2012 Mich. St. L. Rev. 835 (2012)
  • Pannozzo, Uploading Guilt: Adding a Virtual Records Exception to the Federal Rules of Evidence, 44 Conn. L. Rev. 1695 (2012)
  • Simmons & Ritter, Texas’s Spoliation “Presumption”, 43 St. Mary’s L. J. 691 (2012)
  • Coppola & DeMarco, Civil RICO: How Ambiguity Allowed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to Expand Beyond its Intended Purpose, 38 N.E. J. on Crim. & Civ. Con. 241 (2012)
  • Isensee, Enforcing Against The Enforcers: Ensuring Immigration Compliance Through Civil RICO, 49 Hous. L. Rev. 101 (2012)
  • Rosenthal, 25th Anniversary of the Summary Judgment Trilogy: Reflections on Summary Judgment 43 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 471 (2012)
  • Poulin, Experience-Based Opinion Testimony: Strengthening the Lay Opinion Rule, 39 Pepp. L. Rev. 551 (2012)
  • Campbell, Where Do Treating Physicians Belong as Witnesses in the Seventh Circuit?, 9 Ind. Health L. Rev. 247 (2011-12)
  • Democko , Social Media and the Rules on Authentication, 43 U. Tol. L. Rev. 367 (2012)
  • Barnette, Ghost in the Machine: Zubulake Revisited and Other Emerging E-Discovery Issues under the Amended Federal Rules, 18 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 11 (2012)
  • Theiss, Protecting the Burden of Proof in Kentucky: Procedural Safeguards for the Use of Video Excerpts During Closing Argument, 50 U. Louisville L. Rev. 527 (2012)
  • Prescott, On Removal Jurisdiction’s Unanimous Consent Requirement, 53 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 235 (2011)
  • Allman, Preservation Uncertainty Revisited: Addressing Spoliation By Rulemaking, 56 The Advocate 25 (2011)
  • Brown, Benevolent Assistance or Bureaucratic Burden?: Promoting Effective Haitian Reconstruction, Self-Governance, and Human Rights under the Right to Development, 6 Intercultural Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 209 (2011)
  • Imwinkelried, Serendipitous Timing: The Coincidental Emergence of the New Brain Science and the Advent of an Epistemological Approach to Determining the Admissibility of Expert Testimony, 62 Mercer L. Rev. 959 (2011)
  • Mikos, A Critical Appraisal of the Department of Justice’s New Approach to Medical Marijuana, 22 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev 633 (2011)
  • Pinahs, Diversity Jurisdiction and Injunctive Relief: Using a “Moving-Party Approach” to Value the Amount in Controversy, 95 Minn. L. Rev. 1930 (2011)
  • McFadden, Evidence—Privilege Law — How Arkansas’s New Rule of Evidence Codifies “Selective Waiver” of the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work-Product Protection and an Argument for a More Moderate Approach, 33 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 177 (2011)
  • Allman, Rulemaking: The September 2011 Mini-Conference of the Civil Rules Subcommittee, 79 U.S.L.W. 2457 (May 3, 2011)
  • Howard, Groupthink and Corporate Governance Reform: Changing the Formal and Informal Decisionmaking Processes of Corporate Boards, 20 S. Cal. Interdis. L.J. 425 (2011)
  • Puckett, The Tedford Equitable Exception Permitting Removal of Diversity Cases After One Year: A Welcome Development or the Opening of Pandora’s Box?, 63 Baylor L. Rev. 146 (2011)
  • Lemann, Sheep in Wolves’ Clothing: Removing Parens Patriae Suits under the Class Action Fairness Act, 111 Colum. L. Rev. 121 (2011)
  • Poorbaugh, Interfacing Your Accuser: Computerized Evidence and the Confrontation Clause Following Melendez-Diaz, 23 Regent U.L. Rev. 213 (2010/2011)
  • Carrington, Politics and Civil Procedure Rulemaking: Reflections on Experience, 60 Duke L.J. 597 (2010)
  • Koeltl, Progress in the Spirit of Rule 1, 60 Duke L.J. 537 (2010)
  • Lipin, The Effect of Pension Committee on Current Litigation Practice and Liability for Spoliation of Evidence, 34 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 1 (2010)
  • Beisner, Discovering a Better Way: The Need for Effective Civil Litigation Reform, 60 Duke L.J. 547 (2010)
  • McLain, “I’m Going to Dinner with Frank”: Admissibility of Nontestimonial Statements of Intent to Prove the Actions of Someone other than the Speaker — and the Role of the Due Process Clause, 32 Cardozo L. Rev. 373 (2010)
  • Miller, From Conley to Twombly to Iqbal: a Double Play on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 60 Duke L.J. 1 (2010)
  • Nance, Adverse Inferences about Adverse Inferences: Restructuring Juridical Roles for Responding to Evidence Tampering by Parties to Litigation, 90 B.U.L. Rev. 1089 (2010)
  • Johns & Howell, Fifth Circuit Civil Procedure Review, 42 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 651 (2010)
  • Steinman, The Pleading Problem, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 1293 (2010)
  • Shannon, I Have Federal Pleading All Figured Out, 61 Case Western Res. L. Rev. 453 (2010)
  • Geisler, A Bridge to Somewhere: How a Bolder Causal Analysis Can Shape Civil RICO into the Ideal Free Market Safeguard, 54 St. Louis L.J. 609 (2010)
  • Stempel, Refocusing Away from Rules Reform and Devoting More Attention to the Deciders, 87 Denv. U.L. Rev. 335 (2010)
  • Weiss, From the Bonannos to the Bin Ladens: The Reves Operation or Management Test and the Viability of Civil RICO Suits against Financial Supporters of Terrorism, 110 Colum. L. Rev. 1123 (2010)
  • Carrington and Orchard, The Federal Circuit: The National Appellate Court Celebration and Introspective Symposium: The Federal Circuit: A Model for Reform? 78 George. Wash. L. Rev. 575 (2010)
  • Brown & Murphy, Through a Scanner Darkly: Functional Neuroimaging as Evidence of a Criminal Defendant’s Past Mental States, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 1119 (2010)
  • Brownstein, Recognizing Civil RICO in Foreign Courts: Since They Came, Should We Build It?, 35 Brooklyn J. Int’l L. 233 (2010)
  • Taussig, Broadening the Scope of Judicial Gatekeeping: Adopting the Good Faith Doctrine in Class Action Proceedings, 83 St. John’s L. Rev. 1275 (2009)
  • Zuckerman, Yes, I Destroyed the Evidence — Sue Me? Intentional Spoliation of Evidence in Illinois, 27 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 235 (2009)
  • Bahadur, Electronic Discovery, Informational Privacy, Facebook and Utopian Civil Justice, 79 Miss. L.J. 317 (2009)
  • Harris, Metadata: High-Tech Invisible Ink Legal Considerations, 78 Miss. L.J. 939 (2009)
  • Goode, The Admissibility of Electronic Evidence, 29 Rev. Litig. 1 (2009)
  • Imwinkelried, The Implied Obligation of Good Faith in Contract Law: Is It Time to Write Its Obituary?, 42 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 1 (2009)
  • Minotti, The Advent of Digital Diaries: Implications of Social Networking Web Sites for the Legal Profession, 60 S.C. L. Rev. 1057 (2009)
  • Kraus, The Correspondence of Contract and Promise, 109 Colum. L. Rev. 1603 (2009)
  • Eltgroth, Best Evidence and the Wayback Machine: Toward a Workable Authentication Standard for Archived Internet Evidence, 78 Fordham L. Rev. 181 (2009)
  • Clermont, Federal Courts, Practice & Procedure: Litigation Realities Redux, 84 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1919 (2009)
  • Sugisaka and Herr, Admissibility of E-Evidence in Minnesota: New Problems or Evidence as Usual?, 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1453 (2009)
  • Hellman, Another Voice for the “Dialogue”: Federal Courts as a Litigation Course, 53 St. Louis L.J. 761 (2009)
  • Greenbaum, Judicial Reporting of Lawyer Misconduct, 77 UMKC L. Rev. 537 (2009)
  • Burbank, The Continuing Evolution of Securities Class Actions Symposium: Pleading and the Dilemmas of “General Rules”, 2009 Wis. L. Rev. 535
  • Weissenberger, The Proper Interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence: Insights from Article VI, 30 Cardozo L. Rev. 1615 (2009)
  • American College of Trial Lawyers, Recommended Practices For Companies And Their Counsel In Conducting Internal Investigations, 46 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 73 (2009)
  • Counseller, Rooting for the Restyled Rules (Even Though I Opposed Them), 78 Miss. L.J. 519 (2009)
  • Noyes, Federal Rule of Evidence 502: Stirring the State Law of Privilege and Professional Responsibility with a Federal Stick, 66 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 673 (2009)
  • Sichelman, Why Barring Settlement Bars Legitimate Suits: A Reply To Rosenberg And Shavell, 18 Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 57 (2008)
  • Dunlop, Are an Empty Head and a Pure Heart Enough? Mens Rea Standards for Judge-Imposed Rule 11 Sanctions and Their Effects on Attorney Action, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 615 (2008)
  • Whitt, The Split on Sanctioning Pro Se Litigants Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927: Choose Wisely When Picking a Side, Eighth Circuit, 73 Mo. L. Rev. 1365 (2008)
  • Ryan, It’s Just Not Worth Searching for Welcome Mats with a Kaleidoscope and a Broken Compass, 75 Tenn. L. Rev. 659 (2008)
  • Calhoun, Globalization’s Erosion of the Attorney-Client Privilege and What U.S. Courts Can Do to Prevent It, 87 Tex. L. Rev. 235 (2008)
  • Steinman, An Ounce of Prevention: Solving Some Unforeseen Problems with the Proposed Amendments to Rule 56 and the Federal Summary Judgment Process, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 230 (2008)
  • Hoffman, Burn Up the Chaff with Unquenchable Fire: What Two Doctrinal Intersections Can Teach Us about Judicial Power Over Pleadings, 88 B.U.L. Rev. 1217 (2008)
  • Calhoun, Globalization’s Erosion of the Attorney-Client Privilege and What U.S. Courts Can Do to Prevent It, 87 Tex. L. Rev. 235 (2008)
  • Ochi, Developments in the Law: Are Consumer Class and Mass Actions Dead? Complex Litigation Strategies after CAFA & MMTJA, 41 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 965 (2008)
  • Imwinkelried, Book Review: Law for the Expert Witness, 48 Jurimetrics 241 (2008)
  • Cohen, Look Before You Leap: A Guide to the Law of Inadvertent Disclosure of Privileged Information in the Era of E-Discovery, 93 Iowa L. Rev. 627 (2008)
  • Weinstein, The Role of Judges in a Government of, by, and for the People: Notes for the Fifty-Eighth Cardozo Lecture, 30 Cardozo L. Rev. 1 (2008)
  • Pasquale, Scolded: Can An Attorney Appeal A District Court’s Order Finding Professional Misconduct?, 77 Fordham L. Rev. 219 (2008)
  • Braccio and Lundberg, “The Mother of All Balancing Tests”: State v. Ariegwe and Montana’s Revised Speedy Trial Analysis, 69 Mont. L. Rev. 463 (2008)
  • Farber, Harnessing the Power of Information for the Next Generation of Environmental Law: II. Use and Abuse of Information: Modeling Climate Change and Its Impacts: Law, Policy, and Science 86 Tex. L. Rev. 1655 (2008)
  • Davidovitch, Why Rule 37(e) Does Not Create a New Safe Harbor for Electronic Evidence Spoliation, 38 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1131 (2008)
  • Rocco, Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: In the Interest of Full Disclosure, 76 Fordham L. Rev. 2227 (2008)
  • Holcomb & Isaac, Wisconsin’s Public-Records Law: Preserving the Presumption of Complete Public Access in the Age of Electronic Records, 2008 Wis. L. Rev. 515.
  • Huffman, The Necessity of Pleading Elements in Private Antitrust Conspiracy Claims, 10 U. Pa. J. Bus. & Emp. L. 627 (2008)
  • Kanner and Casey, Consumer Class Actions After CAFA, 56 Drake L. Rev. 303 (2008)
  • Hutchison, Loosening the Uniform Application of Removal Jurisdiction, 80 Temp. L. Rev. 1229 (2007)
  • Schenkier, Secrets & Lies: The Limits of Privilege in Communications with Experts, 33 Litigation 16 (2007)
  • Wilson, MySpace, Your Space, or Our Space? New Frontiers in Electronic Evidence, 86 Or. L. Rev. 1201 (2007)
  • Cavallaro, Criminal Law: Federal Rules of Evidence 413-415 and the Struggle for Rulemaking Preeminence, 98 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 31 (2007)
  • Noyes, Good Cause Is Bad Medicine For The New E-Discovery Rules, 21 Harv. J. Law & Tech. 49 (2007)
  • Ahn, CAFA, Choice-of-Law, and the Problem of Legal Maturity in Nationwide Class Actions, 76 U. Cin. L. Rev. 105 (2007)
  • Reed, RICO at the Border: Interpreting Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. and its Effect on Immigration Enforcement, 64 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 1243 (2007)
  • Offenbecher, Admitting Computer Record Evidence after In Re Vinhnee: A Stricter Standard for the Future?, 4 Shidler J. L. Com. & Tech. 6 (2007)
  • Richter, Corporate Salvation or Damnation? Proposed New Federal Legislation on Selective Waiver, 76 Fordham L. Rev. 129 (2007)
  • Guthrie and Mitchell, The Swinton Six: The Impact of State v. Swinton on the Authentication of Digital Images, 36 Stetson L. Rev. 661 (2007)
  • Hershkoff, Poverty Law and Civil Procedure: Rethinking The First-Year Course, 34 Fordham Urb. L.J.1325 (2007)
  • DiLernia, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) and the Ethics of Inadvertent Disclosure, 20 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 533 (2007)
  • McKinney, Too Many Motions for Vacatur of Commercial Arbitration Awards? The Eleventh Circuit Sanctions Unwary Litigants ,1 J. Disp. Resol. 283 (2007)
  • Morande, A Class of Their Own: Model Procedural Rules and Evidentiary Evaluation of Computer- Generated “Animations,” 61 U. Miami L. Rev. 1069 (2007)
  • Sherman, The Class Action Fairness Act and the Federalization of Class Actions, 238 F.R.D. 321 (2007)
  • Mocabee, Central Aspects of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 86 Mich. Bar J. 30 (2007)
  • Various Authors, Developments in the Law: The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 39 Loy. L.A. L.Rev. 995, 1025 (2006)
  • Bozyk, Disgorging American Business: An Examination of Overbroad Remedies in Civil RICO Cases, 59 Rutgers L. Rev. 129 (2006)
  • Selden, (Self-)Policing the Market: Congress’s Flawed Approach to Securities Law Reform, 33 J. Legis. 57 (2006).
  • Sherwin, et al., Law In The Digital Age: How Visual Communication Technologies Are Transforming The Practice, Theory, And Teaching Of Law, 12 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 227 (2006)
  • Macey, Executive Branch Usurpation of Power: Corporations and Capital Markets, 115 Yale L.J. 2416 (2006)
  • Sherry, Federal Courts, Practice & Procedure: Logic without Experience: The Problem of Federal Appellate Courts, 82 Notre Dame L. Rev. 97 (2006)
  • Beck, Supplemental Jurisdiction over Permissive Counterclaims in Light of Exxon v. Allapattah, 41 U.S.F. L. Rev. 45 (2006)
  • Vance, A Primer on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 80 Tul. L. Rev. 1617 (2006)
  • Richmond, Lawyers as Witnesses, 36 N.M. L. Rev. 47 (2006)
  • Klonoff & Hermann, The Class Action Fairness Act: An Ill-Conceived Approach to Class Settlements, 80 Tul. L. Rev. 1695 (2006)
  • Kenneally, Confluence of Digital Evidence and the Law: On the Forensic Soundness of Live-Remote Digital Evidence Collection, 2005 UCLA J. L. Tech. 5.
  • Mickum and Hajek, Guise, Contrivance, or Artful Dodging?: The Discovery Rules Governing Testifying Employee Experts, 24 Rev. Litig. 301, 314, 329, 346, 360 (2005)
  • McMorrow, The (F)Utility of Rules: Regulating Attorney Conduct in Federal Court Practice, 58 SMU L. Rev. 3, 6 (2005)
  • Hantler, et al., Moving Toward the Fully Informed Jury, 3 Geo. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 21, 25 (2005)
  • Stempel, Class Actions and Limited Vision: Opportunities for Improvement Through a More Functional Approach to Class Treatment of Disputes, 83 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1127 (2005)
  • Kovach, The Vanishing Trial: Land Mine on the Mediation Landscape or Opportunity for Evolution: Ruminations on the Future of Mediation Practice, 7 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. 27 (2005)
  • Courselle, Struggling with Deliberative Secrecy, Jury Independence, and Jury Reform, 57 S.C. L. Rev. 203 (2005)
  • Eberwine, Hindsight Bias and the Subsequent Remedial Measures Rule: Fixing the Feasibility Exception, 55 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 633 (2005)
  • Killelea, Spoliation of Evidence: Proposals for New York State, 70 Brooklyn L. Rev. 1045 (2005)
  • Beloof & Cassell, The Crime Victim’s Right to Attend the Trial: The Reascendant National Consensus, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 481 (2005)
  • Lester, Presumed Innocent, Feared Dangerous: The Eighth Amendment’s Right to Bail, 32 N. Ky. L. Rev.1 (2005)
  • Various authors and articles, Developments in the Law [Electronic Discovery], 38 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. at 1541, 1639, 1683, 1745, 1803 (2005)
  • Draba, International Antitrust: Supreme Court Decides the Meaning of “Gives Rise to a Claim” and “Foreign Tribunal,” 2 Loy. Int’l L. Rev. 129 (2004-05)
  • Kozel & Roxenberg, Solving the Nuisance-Value Settlement Problem: Mandatory Summary Judgment, 90 Va. L. Rev. 1849 (2004)
  • Sanchirico, Evidence Tampering, 53 Duke L.J. 12:15 (2004)
  • Herbst, Injunctive Relief and Civil RICO: After Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., RICO’s Scope and Remedies Require Reevaluation, 53 Cath. U.L. Rev. 1125 (2004)
  • Kobayashi & Ribstein, Class Action Lawyers as Lawmakers, 46 Ariz. L. Rev. 733 (2004)
  • Madison, RICO, Judicial Activism, and the Roots of Separation of Powers, 43 Brandeis L.J. 29 (2004)
  • Various authors and articles, Symposium: Happy (?) Birthday, Rule 11, 37 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. at 515, 563, 645, 691, 727, 819 (2004)
  • McMorrow, et. al., “Judging Judges’ Ethics”: Article: Judicial Attitudes Toward Confronting Attorney Misconduct: A View from the Reported Decisions, 32 Hofstra L. Rev. 1425 (2004)
  • Marcus, The Philips D. Reed Lecture Series: Only Yesterday: Reflections on Rulemaking Responses to E-Discovery, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 1 (2004)
  • Wilda, David Pays for Goliath’s Mistakes: The Costly Effect Sarbanes-Oxley Has on Small Companies, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 671 (2004)
  • Silbey, Judges as Film Critics: New Approaches to Filmic Evidence, 37 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 493 (2004)
  • Brownstone, Collaborative Navigation of the Stormy e-Discovery Seas, 10 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 53 (2004)
  • Humes, Macroeconomic Analysis of the Law: The Missing Piece of the Law and Economics Puzzle, 42 Washburn L.J. 957 (2004)
  • Dann & Hans, Recent Evaluative Research on Jury Trial Innovations, 41 Am. Judges Ass’n Court Rev. 12 (2004)
  • Goland, In re Pennie & Edmonds: The Second Circuit Returns to a Subjective Standard of Bad Faith for Imposing Post-Trial Sua Sponte Rule 11 Sanctions, 78 St. John’s L. Rev. 449 (2004)
  • Bigelow, Summary and Expert Witnesses: A Distinction with a Difference, 9 Suffolk J. Trial & App. Adv. 1 (2004)
  • Underwood, Rationality, Multiplicity & Legitimacy: Federalization of the Interstate Class Action, 46 S. Tex. L. Rev. 391 (2004)
  • Vincent, As America Ages: Changing the Domicile of the Incompetent Challenges Diversity Jurisdiction, 43 Washburn L.J. 513 (2004)
  • 5 Wayne R. LaFave, Jerold H. Israel, Nancy J. King and Orin S. Kerr, Criminal Procedure §§ 18.1(a), 18.2(b) (4th ed.)
  • Edward J. Imwinkelried, Evidentiary Foundations §§ 4.03, 4.09 (9th ed.)
  • McCormick on Evidence, §§ 216, 218, 227 (7th ed. Kenneth S. Broun, editor)
  • Eric J. Magnuson & David F. Herr, Federal Appeals: Jurisdiction and Practice § 6.3
  • Michael H. Graham, Handbook of Federal Evidence, vol. 4 § 502:1, vol. 5 § 701:1
  • Kevin F. O’Malley, Jay E. Grenig & Hon. William C. Lee, Federal Jury Practice & Instructions vol. 1 § 6.5, vol. 3B Ch. 161
  • 6 Clifford S. Fishman and Anne T. McKenna, Jones on Evidence § 39:61 (7th ed.)
  • Michael H. Graham, Winning Evidence Arguments §§ 401:7, 502:1, 701:1
  • David M. Greenwald, Robert R. Stauffer & Erin R. Schrantz, Testimonial Privileges §§ 1:102, 1:76, 2:34
  • Business & Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts 4th §§ 29:26, 59:51, 68:18, 70:7, 70:22, 108:12, 108:14
  • Edward J. Imwinkelried, Pretrial Discovery Strategy and Tactics § 6:10
  • 3 Barbara E. Bergman, Nancy Hollander and Theresa M. Duncan, Wharton’s Criminal Evidence § 16:23 (15th ed.)
  • 2 Paul C. Giannelli, 2 Baldwin’s Ohio Practice Rule 901 (3d ed.)
  • 23 Sheila K. Hyatt, Wes’s Colorado Practice Series: Evidence Law § 901:11
  • 16A David K. DeWolf & Keller W. Allen, Washington Practice Series: Tort Law & Practice: Civil RICO §§ 27:1, 27.18
  • 2 Lawrence G. Cetrulo, Toxic Torts Litigation Guide §§ 13.1, 13.72, 13:72
  • 3 Michael Dore, Law of Toxic Torts § 26:1
  • Joseph C. Long, Michael J. Kaufman & John M. Wunderlich, Blue Sky Law § 10.11.10
  • 1 Douglas Danner & Larry L. Varn, Expert Witness Checkliss § 1:311
  • 2 Merrick T. Rossein, Employment Discrimination Law and Litigation §§ 20:45, 20.47
  • Fred I. Heller, Planning and Producing a “Day-in-the-Life” Videotape in a Personal Injury Lawsuit, 39 AmJur Trials 261<<Using or Challenging a “Day-in-the-life” Documentary In a Personal Injury Lawsuit, 40 AmJur Trials 249
  • Videotaped Settlement Brochure, 43 AmJur Trials 239
  • Videotape Evidence, 44 AmJur Trials 171
  • Video Technology, 58 Am. Jur. Trials 481
  • Gruber, Foundation for Contemporaneous Videotape Evidence, 16 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 493
  • Geisler, Proof of Violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and of Sanctions Thereunder, 47 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 241
  • 156 ALR Fed 601
  • CJS Federal Civil Procedure §§ 702, 732
  • 1-8 Arkfeld on Electronic Discovery and Evidence § 8.13 3-8 Construction Law P 8.02
  • 3-24 Business Torts § 24.03
  • 4-40 Business Torts § 40.01
  • 4-5 Computer Law § 5.03
  • 4-9 Computer Law § 9.01
  • 17-15 Bender’s Forms of Discovery Treatise § 15.140
  • 1-6 IP Enforcement in the Digital World § 6.02
  • Danielson v Human and Another (19118/2015) [2016] ZAWCHC 92; 2017 (1) SA 141 (WCC) (Western Cape High Court, Cape Town, South Africa)
  • 23 Ronald I. Meshbesher and James B. Sheehy, Minn. Prac., Trial Handbook For Minn. Lawyers § 19:7 (2017-2018 ed.)
  • Nancy Hollander and Barbara E. Bergman, Everytrial Criminal Defense Resource Book §§ 34.1, 38.4, 38.5
  • David F. Herr and Roger S. Haydock, 11 Minn. Prac., Civil Rules Annotated R 11.03, 11.04 (6th ed.)
  • Daniel J. Fetterman and Mark P. Goodman, Defending Corp. & Indiv. in Gov. Invest. § 17:34
  • 1 Steven H. Steinglass, Section 1983 Litigation in State Courts § 8:2
  • Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, 5 Federal Evidence § 9:9 (4th ed.)
  • Brian R. Means, Postconviction Remedies § 38:5
  • Paul F. Rothstein, Federal Rules of Evidence Rules 804, 901
  • Robert P. Schuwerk & Lilian Hardwick, 48 Tex. Prac., Tex. Lawyer & Jud. Ethics § 3:14 (2018 ed.)
  • Victor W. Carmody, Jr., Kevin T. Stewart & Lance O. Mixon, Miss. Crim. Trial Practice Forms § 16:66
  • 1 John Toothman & Douglass Danner, Trial Practice Checklists § 4:5 (2d ed.)
  • Leslie W. Abramson, 11 Ky. Prac. Civ. Proc. Forms § 8:16
  • Barbara E. Bergman and John D. Cline, Everytrial Criminal Defense Resource Book §§ 38.4, 38:5
  • George McDonald, California Medical Malpractice: Law and Practice § 17:3
  • Charles Alan Wright & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure Deskbook § 74 Federal Judicial Center, Manual for Complex Lit. §§ 31.8, 35.32, 11.446, 12.333 (4th ed.)
  • 2C West’s Federal Forms, District Courts – Civil, §§ 10:2, 10.16 (5th ed.)
  • Thomas Lee Hazen, 6 Law Sec. Reg. § 22:12
  • Hon. Peter M. Lauriat, S. Elaine McChesney, William H. Gordon & Andrew A. Rainer, 49A Mass. Prac. Series, Discovery § 7:15
  • Vernon’s Oklahoma Forms 2d, Instruction No.1.2A, Introductory Instructions—Juror Questionnaires, and Uniform Jury Instructions-Criminal, No. 1-10 Introductory Instructions—Juror Questionnaires
  • Jeffrey L. Kestler, Questioning Techniques and Tactics § 9:13 (3d ed.)
  • 2 White Collar Crime § 13:8 (2d ed.)
  • 11 David A. Demers, Fla. Prac., DUI Handbook § 8:1 (2017-2018 ed.)

 

New York Attorneys 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.
New York Attorneys 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.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice