Litigation Philosophy

We remain committed to providing the high quality services consistent with  the guidelines used by my former employer, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).  As an FDIC bankruptcy attorney, I reviewed many outside counsel fee bills for compliance with the FDIC’s “Guide for Legal Representation”, which  provided:

We believe it is important at the beginning of each assignment to identify clearly the objectives to be achieved and the possible alternative courses of action. . . .

The FDIC’s philosophy with respect to litigation is to pursue an approach that is aggressive and forthright, but consistent with our overall objective of resolving litigation in the most expeditious and cost-effective manner.  In handling litigation the FDIC seeks to avoid extreme advocacy positions that are not likely to have a substantial impact on its litigation.  Coercive, delaying and obstructive tactics should be avoided.

The settlement possibilities of each matter should be identified and considered early in the proceedings and at each stage thereafter.  Where possible, cases should be settled at a very early stage in order to be cost effective.  . . . .   The FDIC will generally consider compromise settlements on two grounds: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits; and (2) an assessment of the net economic recovery, given the ability of the other party or parties to respond to a judgment. . . . .  The FDIC has used alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) successfully in the past and views the process as a potentially cost effective means of facilitating negotiated settlements.

This philosophy is sound, has withstood the test of time and is the same approach I continue to adhere to in my practice and the handling of your matter.