Practice Areas & Industries: Greenberg Traurig, LLP

 





Group Profile Lawyers in this Group Offices Locations for this Group
 

Practice/Industry Group Overview

With a team of more than 500 attorneys, Greenberg Traurig’s litigation practice offers firsthand experience and wide-ranging resources to protect clients’ interests in virtually every area of litigation. We are trial lawyers who regularly appear in state and federal courts throughout the country, as well as in appellate courts and before international arbitration panels.

We have tried many cases to verdict – and have the in-house legal and technological capabilities to efficiently handle dockets of cases numbering in the thousands. We also understand that going to trial often is not in a company’s best interest. Each of our clients has individual business goals that require varying litigation techniques. Therefore, we work closely with in-house counsel to develop a strategy – from strategic settlement to mediation to trying the case – that best fits a litigation cost and proficiency model appropriate to the client’s unique needs.

With the firm’s national footprint, we are able to deliver our services and handle cases in multiple jurisdictions with the dedication, responsiveness and local knowledge of a boutique firm, backed by the breadth and depth of resources of one of the largest law firms in the United States.

Experienced Trial Lawyers

The vast majority of GT’s litigation shareholders and of counsel have first chair trial experience. In addition, GT is one of the few firms with more than 90 former federal and state prosecutors in its litigation group.

Depth of Experience

  • Litigators who try complex cases to verdict in state and federal courts
     
  • Wide-ranging experience with alternative dispute resolution and strategic settlements
     
  • Ability to develop integrated legal strategies that support our clients’ business objectives
     
  • Forge legislative or administrative strategies, together with GT’s governmental affairs practice, to address otherwise intractable problems

Litigation Support

The firm’s litigation support department is comprised of experienced professionals dedicated to assisting the litigation group with case management, document control, discovery management and trial coordination.

  • State-of-the-art software and hardware solutions that facilitate case management, discovery and trial presentations
     
  • Preparation and presentation of demonstrative evidence for arbitrations, evidentiary hearings and trials
     
  • eDiscovery and eRetention teams that help clients identify and plan for the management of their electronically stored information to reduce cost and litigation risk

Working with our Clients

GT’s litigation team is dedicated to increasing the experience and familiarity of our clients’ in-house counsel with our litigation defenses and strategies. Our team has customized programs for many clients based on their specific needs. We collaborate with clients and co-counsel to build a unified litigation approach. GT can:

  • Educate counsel on science, medical literature, plaintiff strategies and defenses in a given case, using outside consultants where appropriate
     
  • Provide trial preparation and training on potential alternatives for document collection, retention and management, as well as training on the use of extranets and other technologies, as needed
     
  • Conduct training for company witnesses on the mechanics and subtleties of providing effective and appropriate deposition and trial testimony

Lean Staffing

  • Avoid overstaffing, rotating attorneys and multiple attendees at meetings, depositions, hearings and court appearances
     
  • Reduce the need for local counsel based on GT’s national footprint

 

Services Available

 
Group Presentations
  ICPAS - Healthcare Compliance and Fraud Half-Day Conference, November 12, 2013
American Ireland Fund - Chicago Dinner 29th Annual , November 7, 2013
Personal Care Products Council Webinar - Current Status of Natural & Organic Cosmetic Claims, October 29, 2013
Big Data Privacy: Business & Government, October 25, 2013
 
Past Seminar Materials
  ALM/The Recorder West Coast General Counsel Conference, November 19, 2013
WLI 20th Annual Conference, November 14, 2013
ATA - Management Conference & Exhibition, October 19, 2013
LSI Tribal Rights, Sovereignty and Economic Development Updates on legal and policy developments; practical tips and strategies, October 10, 2013
Public Records Act Litigation - The Unique Procedural Issues of Bringing and Defending Public Records Law Suits, October 9, 2013
See more...
 
 
Articles Authored by Lawyers at this office:

Applying Aspen Skiing, Tenth Circuit Finds Microsoft Not Liable For Terminating Dealings with a Competitor
Ryan F. Harsch,Irving Scher, November 21, 2013
In Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s post-trial judgment that Microsoft was not liable under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (Section 2) for monopolization of the market for PC operating systems. In doing so, the court reaffirmed that in order to...

FINRA's New 'New' Discovery Guide:  E-Discovery, Affirmations and Product Cases
Michael E. Pastore,Scott E. Rahn, November 21, 2013
On Sept. 16, 2013, the SEC approved amendments to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) Dispute Resolution Discovery Guide (Discovery Guide), which will become effective on Dec. 2, 2013 for all customer cases filed on or after the effective date. FINRA petitioned the Securities...

Heartburn for Drug Manufacturers: 'Reverse Payment' That Did Not Include a Monetary Payment Held Actionable Under the Antitrust Laws
John J. Elliott,Irving Scher, November 21, 2013
On July 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved a decade of conflicting circuit court decisions in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., ruling that "reverse-payment" settlements of Hatch-Waxman Act patent infringement lawsuits "can sometimes violate the antitrust laws," and...

CFPB Trial Disclosure Program Now Effective
Robert E. Bostrom,Peter L. Cockrell,Brett M. Kitt,Gil Rudolph,J. Scott Sheehan, November 15, 2013
On October 29th, the CFPB’s Notice of Policy regarding its Trial Disclosure Program was published in the Federal Register, thus making the Policy effective. Section 1032(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act permits consumer financial service providers to “conduct a trial program that is limited in...

Fifth Circuit Holds That Stern Eliminates Bankruptcy Court's Power to Decide Non-Core Actions by Consent
Mark D. Bloom,G. Ray Warner, November 15, 2013
In a decision that demonstrates the potentially broad impact of the forthcoming Supreme Court decision in Bellingham, the Fifth Circuit held that bankruptcy judges may not “determine” non-core matters even where the parties consent. BP RE, L.P. v. RML Waxahachie Dodge, L.L.C. (In re BP...

Ninth Circuit Holds that a Properly Structured Voluntary Rental Program Offering Does Not Convert Hotel Condominium Units into Securities
Richard F. Davis, September 30, 2013
In a case involving the offering of 450 condominium hotel units and a rental program at the Hard Rock Hotel in San Diego, California, the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals found in favor of the sponsor and upheld the real estate purchase and sale agreements as just that, a real estate contract...

Does My Email Communication Constitute a Binding Agreement?
Israel Rubin,Rachel Sims, August 27, 2013
In an era where the prevalence of email exchanges in the business arena is almost commonplace, clients and attorneys should be aware that a form of identification which could constitute their signature in an email, attesting to the substance of a negotiated settlement, may be considered a binding...

Discovery Verifications May Lead to Corporate Punitive Damages
Mark D. Kemple,Adrienne J. Lawrence,Adam Siegler, August 24, 2013
Litigators defending corporations against punitive damages claims based on employee misconduct should be cautious when permitting employees to execute discovery verifications as an “officer,” “director” or “managing agent,” because they may be held to have...

It May Be Steel, but Its Supply is Elastic: Eleventh Circuit Rejects Market Definition That Fails to Account for Ease of Entry
Scott Martin, August 22, 2013
In a decision undergirded by fundamental principles of economics, burden of proof and common sense, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the entry of summary judgment dismissing attempted monopolization claims against a producer of untreated hot rolled steel in Gulf States Reorganization Group, Inc. v....

Ninth Circuit Decision Addresses Standards for Claim That Buyer Knowingly Received Unlawfully Discriminatory Prices in Violation of Robinson-Patman Act
Irving Scher, August 22, 2013
On July 19th, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a per curiam decision in Gorlick Distribution Centers, LLC v. Allied Exhaust Systems, Inc., a rare Robinson-Patman Act (R-P) court of appeals decision addressing a claim that a purchaser knowingly received unlawfully discriminatory prices...

Supreme Court Rules That Reverse-Payment Patent Litigation Settlements are Subject to Judicial Review Under the Antitrust Rule of Reason
John J. Elliott, August 22, 2013
On June 17th, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a decade of conflicting circuit court opinions when it held in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., that “reverse-payment” settlements of Hatch-Waxman Act patent lawsuits “can sometimes violate the antitrust laws,” and for...

No Broker-Customer Relationship Absent a Direct Connection to Investment-Related Services Provided by the Brokerage Firm
Jennifer Tomsen,Terry R. Weiss, August 16, 2013
A Utah federal district court is the latest to join the chorus of opinions holding that a would-be arbitration claimant cannot proceed with a FINRA arbitration because the investor was not the brokerage firm’s customer. Orchard Securities LLC v. Pavel. A host of district and appellate...

Supreme Court Extends PLIVA to Preempt Certain Design Defect Claims Against Generic Manufacturers
Robert P. Charrow, August 13, 2013
In Mutual Pharm. Co., Inc. v. Bartlett, No. 12-142 (U.S. June 24, 2013), the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision building on PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U. S. --- (2011), held that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempted a state law design defect action against a generic drug manufacturer that...