Since its founding in 1845, the hallmarks of Robinson+Cole have included the breadth and depth of its trial practice. Today, nearly a third of the firm's lawyers engage in trial work across a vast spectrum. Robinson+Cole trial lawyers are on the cutting edge of class action litigation as co-counsel before the United States Supreme Court in Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Knowles. Its lawyers enjoy industry-leading practices with nationwide scope, such as insurance coverage litigation arising from Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Katrina. The firm's trial lawyers are entrusted with mission-critical work as co-counsel in a Department of Justice antitrust review of a client's $18 billion acquisition. Work in criminal trials prepares and informs our ability to advise and advocate for clients in regulatory enforcement actions, internal investigations, and criminal proceedings. The geographic reach of our trial practice meets the regional, national, and global nature of our clients' operations.
In an era when the trial is said to be disappearing, the depth of the firm's trial experience remains extensive. Robinson+Cole's trial lawyers have tried numerous cases in various courts over the past several years. Two of our partners have achieved the pinnacle of peer recognition in the industry with their induction into the American College of Trial Lawyers. Many more of our trial lawyers are listed in Chambers USA, Best Lawyers in America, Super Lawyers, and Benchmark Litigation.
Robinson+Cole's trial practice combines the substantial resources and breadth of experience of a large firm with the depth of trial experience, the efficient staffing, and the responsiveness of a trial boutique. The firm's trial lawyers employ project management and advanced technology to enhance our legal service. The firm's best of breed tools, programs and processes enable it to manage litigation documents safely, efficiently and flexibly, allowing access by our trial lawyers and clients wherever they may be in the world, whenever they need them. Our E-Discovery and Information Management Team helps our clients manage the complexities and expense of electronic discovery in an efficient and trial-ready manner. Robinson+Cole trial lawyers routinely use iPads and similar mobile devices to wirelessly manage and present exhibits and deposition testimony. But all of this cutting-edge technology has only one job: to advance the goals of Robinson+Cole's clients.
No enterprise, certainly not a law firm, can survive for almost two centuries without carefully cultivating its future leaders. Robinson+Cole provides an extensive Trial Training Program for new trial lawyers. Senior lawyers in the section lead monthly training sessions on core trial skills in a "learn-by-doing" format. The program culminates in a day-long mock trial to a jury whose deliberations are watched by the participants and spectators by closed-circuit television. Education in substantive focus areas are also critical components of the firm's training programs. "Insurance 101" provides lawyers new to that area of the law with the building blocks that are basic to the practice. "Business Litigation University" is a program that guides new lawyers through the substantive areas that comprise business litigation, as well as critical skills like accounting, early case assessment and working with experts. Each program is designed to develop the next generation of client-focused trial lawyers of Robinson+Cole.
Travco v. Ward 468 Fed. Appx. 195 (4th Cir. 2012) and 284 Va. 547 (Va., 2012), (US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit and Virginia Supreme Court) – This was the nation's leading case on the question of whether coverage existed under property insurance policies for losses caused by the presence of Chinese Drywall. We brought this declaratory judgment action on behalf of the insurer, which was a Travelers subsidiary. We successfully obtained summary judgment from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On appeal, after briefing and argument, the US Fourth Circuit certified most of the coverage issues to the Virginia Supreme Court. The Virginia Supreme Court then affirmed the rulings of the federal district court, and the US Fourth Circuit subsequently affirmed the judgment in its entirety. Steve Goldman argued the motion for summary judgment before the district court and the appeals in both the US Fourth Circuit and the Virginia Supreme Court.
Defended insurer in a case brought in the Central District of California in which the plaintiff sought to bring a class action involving two classes of allegedly aggrieved policyholders. The first class was allegedly deprived of payment of general contractor overhead and profit as a part of its damages. The second class was allegedly deprived of payment of sales tax as a part of its damages. After extensive discovery and motion practice, the class action allegations were voluntarily dismissed and the case was resolved on favorable terms.
Represented privately held trust in securities fraud action against private investment broker and her company. Obtained judgment exceeding $1.3 million after trial, which was successfully defended on appeal to the Second Circuit. After the defendants failed to satisfy the judgment, succeeded in piercing the corporate veil of the company in a five-day jury trial to reach the assets of the broker's husband, a co-owner of the company, and successfully defended that judgment at the Second Circuit.
Representation of Imaginative Research Associates, a cosmetics and pharmaceutical research company, in an action brought to enforce intellectual property, noncompete, and confidentiality restrictions in a stock purchase agreement; defeated a motion for summary judgment and thereafter settled the action on favorable terms.
Successfully defended a manufacturer of nutritional supplements against a proposed nationwide consumer product class action brought in California state court. The manufacturer, which distributes its product worldwide, was facing claims based on allegations that included product mislabeling and unfair trade practices, as well as violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and California-specific causes of action. We aggressively litigated the case in the early stages, and prior to any discovery production by the defendant or any depositions being conducted, the plaintiff agreed to a voluntarily dismissal with prejudice without any payment from the defendant.