Lawyers in large firms have associates and paralegals to whom they can delegate some of the myriad tasks that go into preparing a case for trial. Lawyers in small firms often lack that luxury. Motions practice, while necessary, can be a distraction from discovery and trial preparation. Bringing an appeal – or defending against one – pulls time away from newer cases. Sometimes there are just not enough hours in the day to do all the research you need. An experienced contract lawyer -- or "freelance lawyer," as we are sometimes called -- can fill the breach.
I have extensive experience in government contracts, administrative law, commercial litigation, insurance defense, and both federal and private-sector employment law. I have handled cases in state and federal trial and appellate courts, and I have successfully opposed petitions for certioriari in both the U.S. and Virginia Supreme Courts. I can provide the extra hands – and extra brain – that enable a lawyer to provide the best possible representation. Some examples of tasks I have done for other lawyers:
- Legal research on discrete issues in a case
- Preparing a dispositive motion to narrow the issues or even eliminate the need for trial; opposing a dispositive motion filed by the other side
- Bringing or defending an appeal
- Editing and polishing draft briefs
- Discovery motions (to compel discovery or for a protective order) and motions in limine
- Drafting interrogatories
- Summarizing depositions or lengthy documents
- Preparing exhibits
- Serving as “second chair” at trial
- In appropriate cases, I serve as local counsel for out-of-state attorneys
A few examples of my reported cases:
Blackmon-Malloy v. US Capitol Police Bd., 575 F. 3d 699 (D.C. Cir. 2009) - established that the Congressional Accountability Act permits exhaustion of administrative remedies through counsel (rather than requiring in-person counseling and mediation) and does not require complainants to extend the mediation time period established by Congress
Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F. 3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) - established the principle that, where an employee has suffered an adverse employment action and an employer has asserted a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the decision, the district court should not subject the plaintiff’s allegations to a test of whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. Although the Court sustained the summary judgment on alternative grounds, the more liberal standard for evaluating the merits of summary judgment has removed a hurdle to the vindication of discrimination claims.
CACI, Inc.-Federal v. United States, 719 F. 2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1983) - established that government conflict-of-interest rules in contracting are not violated merely because the contract evaluators have had prior professional contacts with one of the competing bidders, where those contacts did not relate to the contract at issue and were removed in time.
References and writing samples available on request.