Are We Different?
Many claim to be different and therefore preferable. We leave that judgment to our friends and clients. What we can say is that we are not slaves to tradition or to the mainstream. From the way we treat each other, to the way we practice, our guidelines are not just what has passed before. Instead, we seek in each instance what is most likely to work most effectively. Cliche or not, we routinely “think outside the box”. We always strive to understand the essential nature of the needs of our client and to design an approach that will produce a solution based on economy, efficiency and elegance.
Our starting point always assumes that our work will be funded from scarce resources. “Money is no object” is an expression we expect to find only in the movies. Our approach is simple. We think of the money we are spending as if it were coming out of our own pocket. We ask ourselves would we think this was a good deal? If not, it would not be recommended.
There are many paths to the finish line. Some involve more twists and turns. Some require more of our client’s time and resources. Some take longer. We always look for the path that leads most directly to the “tape” without creating unnecessary risks or costs.
Part of our hallmark is that we fervently believe that if a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing well. Experience has taught us that the elegant solution is often the most efficient and economical approach. We believe that our insistence on quality pays dividends in the resilience and reliability of our work product.
Our Work Is Different
A principal appeal of our practice is the degree to which each of our projects presents a new adventure. We do not hold in contempt, nor discard with derision, the work of lawyers who learn to do one thing well and devote themselves thereafter to its repetition. Nor do we shy away from projects some might call “ordinary” or “mundane.” But we are proud that the projects in which we typically find ourselves are unique and present new challenges. We enjoy pioneering new areas, contributing to the development of new precedents, and laying tracks for others to follow. We do not lightly ignore proven solutions. But in too many of our cases we find ourselves compelled to plow new ground. We view that not as an impediment but an opportunity. We enjoy the opportunity to be creative and innovative.
- Complex Transactions
- Complex Transactions
Business Formation & Transactions
Civil & Corporate Litigation
Lancet Indemnity Risk Retention Group (2019)
Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Group (2019)
Capson Insurance Company (2019)
Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania (“SHIP”) (2018)
Senior American Life Insurance Company (2018)
AF&L Insurance Company (2018)
Access Insurance Company (2018)
Millennium Closing Services, LLC d/b/a Millennium Title (2016)
Nevada Health CO-OP (“NHC”) (2015)
Universal Health Care of Nevada (2013)
Nevada Contractors Insurance Company, Inc. (“NCIC”) and Builders Insurance Company, Inc. (“BIC”) (2013)
Santa Fe Auto Insurance Company (2013)
Penn Treaty Network American Insurance Co. & American Network Insurance Co. (2012)
Southern Title Insurance Corporation (2011)
Shenandoah Life Insurance Company (2009)
AmeriTrust Title Company (2009)
Safeco Insurance Companies (2008)
Webb County Title & Abstract Company, Inc. (2008)
Guardian Fidelity Title Company, Ltd. (2008)
Esquire Title, LLC (2008)
Reciprocal of America (“ROA”) and The Reciprocal Group (“TRG”) (2003)
Surety Mutual Insurance Company (2003)
CareFirst Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Maryland (2002)
Kansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield (2001)
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (1999)
HOW Insurance Company, a Risk Retention Group (“HOWIC”), Home Warranty Corporation, and Home Owners Warranty Corporation (collectively, the “HOW Companies”) (1994)
Fidelity Bankers Life Insurance Company (1991)