The National Law Journal, NLJ 250--Regional Report - American ...

april 2, 2012
this week
NLJ.COM
Check out exclusive
daily news coverage,
blogs, videos and more
at our Web site.
ACA attack:
Protesters rallying
outside the U.S.
Supreme Court last
week.
Political players
On health care, Roberts Court charts aggressive course.
By Marcia Coyle and Tony Mauro
Regardless of the outcome of the
challenge to the new health care law,
three days of arguments last week
may have cemented the view of the
Roberts Court as a willing and aggressive
player in the American political
conversation.
After more than six hours of arguments
on the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act, advocates
on both sides were surprised at how
quickly the questioning seemed to
break down on ideological lines in
spite of the Court’s preferred selfimage
as neutral and apolitical.
Some justices questioned Congress’
ability to remedy problems with the
law if key provisions were severed;
some challenged economic assump-
See health care, Page 4
diego m. radzinschi
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli has taken heat
for his soft-spoken argument style. PAGE 5
A day-by-day recap of key events last week
at the U.S. Supreme Court. PAGE 6
Advocates in the health care debate comment on
the arguments as they saw them. PAGE 7
Regional Report
Annual Survey of the Nation’s Largest Law Firms
2012
BEST OF
Top 25 U.S.
Markets
Our report on NLJ 250 survey results by region examines the top 25
U.S. markets, the top international markets, and provides data on
where law firms are committing their lawyers. Plus, a firm-by-firm
listing of nearly 3,000 NLJ 250 regional offices. PAGE 13
2012
BEST OF
Introducing: Best of
The National Law Journal
“Vendorocracy” in Action
Vote
Now
Vote today: http://svy.mk/BestofNLJ

2 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
contents
Volume 34, Number 31
National News
1 Regardless of the outcome of the challenge to the new health care law,
three days of arguments last week may have cemented the view of the
Roberts Court as a willing and aggressive player in the American political
conversation.
in-house counsel
9 Samantha Harnett serves as general counsel of ZipRealty Inc.
the NLJ 250 regional report
13 A look at the largest U.S. and international offices of NLJ 250 firms; NLJ
250 offices by state; and the top U.S. and international markets. Plus, a listing
of all the regional offices of NLJ 250 firms, with headcounts at each office.
the practice
47 Nick Akerman says company policies should address recent legislation
and cases affecting data theft, social networking and cloud computing.
opinion
58 James Huffman hails the Supreme Court opinion holding that Montana
does not own the land beneath three rivers. James Scanlan notes a
conundrum for lenders seeking to avoid discriminatory practices.
FROM WASHINGTON: Schuelke report on prosecutorial
misconduct in Ted Stevens trial draws criticism. A series of
cases raises link between DES and breast cancer. page 41
also in this issue
in brief 3 Movers 10 Verdicts & Settlements 11
inadmissible 42 Classified 55
How to reach the national law journal
120 Broadway, 5th Floor • New York, NY 10271 • (212) 457-9400
The National Law Journal (ISSN 2163-8756) is published weekly, except the last week
of the year, by ALM Media Properties, LLC, 120 Broadway, New York, NY 10271.
Annual subscription rate is $485: outside U.S. $600. For subscription inquiries call
1-877-256-2472 or write to The National Law Journal, Customer Service, PO Box 70162
Philadelphia, PA 19176-9628. Periodicals postage paid at New York, NY and additional
mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The National Law Journal, ALM
Customer Service, 4 Metrotech, 21st floor, Brooklyn NY 11201.
voir dire
‘Dracula’ contract
escapes the crypt
In Dracula, Bram
Stoker’s count rose from
a coffin after the sun
went down. Conversely,
the author’s original
legal contract is about to
see the light of day.
Under lock and key
for more than 100 years,
the handwritten paper
lays out the terms dictated
by Stoker for the book’s publication in England.
On May 1, 1897, he negotiated a 20 percent royalty
fee—nearly twice what modern authors can command.
According to The Independent, the first print of Dracula
ran 3,000 copies. Stoker received no royalties for the
first thousand, but thereafter received one shilling and
sixpence per sale. He didn’t do as well in the United
States, where, according to great-grandnephew Dacre
Stoker, “strange copyright laws…required authors to serialize
their work before publishing.” Doubleday, Stoker’s
American publisher, has not revealed its contract with
Stoker to this day. Stoker studied law at Trinity College
Dublin but never practiced. —Ri c h a r d Bi n d e r
Bieber! Dallas entertainment lawyer Emily Horton represents
two clients who are contemplating suing Justin
Bieber. On March 7, Bieber tweeted, “Call me right
now…” and gave a phone number minus the last digit.
That number, starting with the Dallas 214 area code, was
similar to phone numbers belonging to her clients, who
subsequently were deluged with calls. Horton said her
clients hope for “a friendly resolution.” —Te x a s La w y e r
Hacktastic A Florida man has pleaded
guilty to hacking into the personal e-mail
accounts of more than 50 entertainment
figures, including Scarlett Johansson,
Mila Kunis and Renee Olstead.
Christopher Chaney, 35, pleaded guilty to
nine felony counts of illegally accessing the
victims’ computers and changing their e-mail
passwords using publicly available information
from the Internet. He created an alias account
to receive forwarded messages, including
attachments containing scripts, driver’s licenses
and private photographs. To name one example,
Chaney got Christina Aguilera to send photographs of
herself “wearing very little clothing,” the indictment said.
Those shots later ended up on the Internet. Chaney faces
up to 60 years in federal prison. —Am a n d a Br o n s t a d
Stop nightclubbing and focus
on your work.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephanie
Sauter, advising Lindsay Lohan while
releasing her from probation for DUI.
christina
aguilera
Aversion therapy Trial attorney W. Mark Lanier
shared some tidbits during a recent plaintiffs’ bar conference
about connecting with jurors. People under age 25
don’t want to listen to speeches, he said—“It is an insult to
this generation if you don’t entertain them.” He suggested
memorizing facts to gain credibility with jurors. Also, get
an electric buzzer at a dog-training store to help kick the
habit of saying “uh” and “um.” “Get a collar with the
prongs,” he said. “I promise you, after five minutes, you’ll
get rid of [the habit].” —Am a n d a Br o n s t a d
ap photo; MWP/ZUMAPRESS.com
staffing
ratios
The 40 th annual survey of
Law Firm economics
total
compensation
billable
hours
law firm
financials
Focus In on Your FIrm’s PerFormance—participate in the survey of
Law Firm economics, the most comprehensive collection of key law firm metrics
on the market. As a participant, you will receive a FREE Survey excerpt, FREE
metropolitan area data cuts and almost 50% off the purchase of the final report,
giving you the depth and range of metrics you need to clarify your firm’s position
in the marketplace.
PraIse For The surveY
“The Survey allows us to measure ourselves against firms that ‘look’ like us, and
has become a valuable benchmarking tool for evaluating the key financial indicators
that drive firm profits. High Survey participation levels ensure that the geographic
and firm-size data is statistically meaningful and relevant.”
— Robert Faro, Chief Financial Officer, Gibbons P.C.
hourly
rates
Participate now at
http://bit.ly/Participate2012SLFE
ALMlegalintel.com

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 3
in brief
Shakeup at Dewey
Dewey & LeBoeuf’s partners
are considering replacing the
firm’s governance structure
with a
five-member
“office
of the
chairman.”
London
mergersand-acquisitions
partner
Stephen Horvath
Stephen
Horvath
would take control of day-today
operations. The firm has
suffered high-level departures,
questions about its fiscal
health and a wave of negative
publicity.
Hurry up on DOMA
The Justice Department
wants to fast track the Defense
of Marriage Act challenge
pending before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Calling the matter a case of
“exceptional importance and
urgency,” the department,
now actively opposing the
law in court, asked the court
to send the case straight to an
expedited hearing before an
11-judge en banc panel.
Lawsuit abuse alleged
U.S. Senator Dianne
Feinstein (D-Calif.) has threatened
that, unless California
lawmakers clamp down on
“predatory” disability access
lawsuits, she may write federal
legislation to do just that.
Feinstein accused plaintiffs’
lawyers of coercing business
owners into paying five-figure
settlements by threatening
potentially costlier lawsuits targeting
minor violations under
the state’s access and civil
rights laws.
The National Law Journal is accepting nominations for our 2012
Intellectual Property Hot List. We will highlight firms that focus significantly
on patent, copyright or trademark matters and have demonstrated
creative strategies for litigation, patent prosecution, licensing
Panoramic/ZUMAPRESS.com
Immunity sought
Dominique Strauss-Kahn
is seeking “absolute immunity”
from civil claims as the
managing director of the
International Monetary Fund
when he was accused of
sexually assaulting hotel maid
Nafissatou Diallo. New York
County, N.Y., Supreme Court
Justice Douglas McKeon didn’t
rule, but prodded defense
attorneys to say why Strauss-
Kahn could be immune from
the civil suit when he had not
asserted diplomatic immunity
against since dropped criminal
charges.
intellectual property hot list
Dominique Strauss-Kahn
–from staff and alm reports
Facebook fears
A national survey of federal
judges found that they are
concerned about juror use
of social media that could
influence the outcome of trials.
Only 30 of the 508 judges
who responded were aware of
social-media use during trial or
deliberations, but 94 percent
had taken preventive measures
against it, according to the
survey, conducted last fall by
the Federal Judicial Center
and made public in the March
Third Branch newsletter.
Stanford dean leaving
Stanford Law School Dean
Larry Kramer will step down,
effective on Aug. 31. Kramer,
who has led the school since
2004, will become president of
the William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation. He is credited
with integrating the law school
with other Stanford programs.
and other transactional work. We want to hear about important matters
that the firm handled during calendar year 2011. The deadline is
April 2. For more details and to complete our online survey, please go
to NLJ.com.
NLJ.COM
Print subscribers get full access to
all of our online coverage and can
sign up for our twice-daily e-mail
news alerts. Online right now at
nlj.com:
Officials at Northwestern
University School of Law
announced that they would limit
the tuition increase for the J.D.
program next year to 3 percent.
CORRECTIONS: The Top 100 Verdicts
of 2011, compiled by The
National Law Journal’s Verdict-
Search affiliate and published
in the NLJ on March 12, contained
an error. Case No. 13,
VanSlembrouck v. Halperin, an
approximately $145 million
medical malpractice verdict,
was handed down in Oakland
County, Mich., Circuit Court.
An Inadmissible item in the
March 26 edition, “Doing good,
pt. 2,” reported in error that
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein &
Fox’s intellectual property and
human rights pro bono practice
is run by the nonprofit Public
Interest Intellectual Property
Advisors. It is similar to a program
run by that group.
Professional Announcements
Arnold & Porter LLP is proud to congratulate our newest partners and counsel
E. Alex Beroukhim
Partner, Los Angeles
Arthur Luk
Partner, Washington, DC
Allison B. Rumsey
Partner, Washington, DC
John T. Gould
Partner, Washington, DC
Peggy Otum
Partner, Washington, DC
Christopher Stothers
Partner, London
Robert J. Katerberg
Partner, Washington, DC
Sonia Kuester Pfaffenroth
Partner, Washington, DC
Matthew Grant
Counsel, New York
Nicole Liffrig Molife
Counsel, Washington, DC
Ryan Watts
Counsel, Washington, DC
Stephen Marsh
Counsel, Washington, DC
Andrew Shipe
Counsel, Washington, DC
David Menichetti
Counsel, Washington, DC
Stuart Turner
Counsel, Washington, DC
arnoldporter.com
Brussels • Denver • London • Los Angeles • New York • Northern Virginia • San Francisco • Silicon Valley • Washington, DC

4 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
health care at the high court
The Court and
alien tort suits
by Michael D. Goldhaber
Could anything be worse for human rights
claimants than a ruling by the U.S. Supreme
Court that the Alien Tort Statute does not apply to
corporations Yes: a ruling by the Supreme Court that
the Alien Tort Statute does not apply to human rights
offenses committed in other nations. The first issue
was argued before the Court in February in Kiobel
v. Royal Dutch Shell. In a surprise procedural order in
March, the Court ordered the parties to brief the second
issue, and re-argue the case in the October term.
A broad ruling against extraterritoriality is more
dangerous to human rights plaintiffs than one
against corporate liability for two reasons. It could
bar alien tort suits against officers and directors, and
it could bar more traditional alien tort suits against
individuals who commit torture or other war crimes.
Plaintiffs have a better shot of winning on corporate
liability, although I wouldn’t bet on any plaintifffriendly
outcome. Legally, the circuit courts laid out
three paths to a plaintiffs’ victory on the corporate
issue. Politically, a defense ruling on the corporate
issue would draw embarrassing comparisons to
The global lawyer
Tracking the world’s big disputes
Citizens United. Does the Court really want to rule that
corporations are people when it comes to buying
elections, but not when it comes to accountability
for human rights atrocities Apparently not—as long
as there’s a subtler and more intellectually attractive
way to shut down the corporate alien tort enterprise.
Of the two corporate alien tort cases now queued
up for the Court, only Sarei v. Rio Tinto squarely presents
extraterritoriality. Cert is still pending in Sarei, but
the Rio lawyers had a credible hope to squeeze their
case into this term. In a fascinating tactical maneuver
that has gone unremarked, the Sarei plaintiffs waived
their right to respond to the Rio Tinto cert petition on
Dec. 27, the day before it was due. Since the Court
rarely grants cert without a response, it was fairly predictable
that it would order the plaintiffs to respond
nonetheless. The inevitable result was that the conference
date slipped so late that it would no longer
be possible for the Court to take the case this term.
Shell’s lawyers and amici, led by Kathleen Sullivan
of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, proceeded
to raise the extraterritoriality argument in the Kiobel
briefs anyway. The Kiobel plaintiffs refused to engage.
At oral argument, plaintiffs’ lawyer Paul Hoffman
opened by saying that the Court faced “the narrow
issue of whether a corporation can ever be held
liable for violating fundamental human rights norms
under the Alien Tort Statute.” Narrow, of course, only
compared to the issue of extraterritoriality.
Alas for the plaintiffs, the justices were determined
to choose their own rationale, even if that
meant pushing the case into next term. The Court
surprised all by taking no action in Sarei, but ordering
new briefing and argument in Kiobel on extraterritoriality.
For whatever reason, the Court has chosen
Kiobel as the vessel for a ruling on extraterritoriality.
Oddly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit
earlier chose Kiobel as the vessel for corporate liability,
even though that issue was briefed only in a different
case. Kiobel is apparently an alien tort Rorschach test;
judges see in it what they wish to see.
Michael D. Goldhaber is senior
international correspondent for
ALM and The American Lawyer.
E-mail: mgoldhaber@alm.com.
For Court, a wider ideological divide
health care, from page 1
tions underlying the law,
pointing to amicus briefs
by opponents, despite
being urged by the government
to stick to the
text and legislative history.
“One can’t walk away
from the last three days
thinking this is a particularly
timid court or one
sensitive to the passive
virtues,” said Stephen
Vladeck of American
University Washington
College of Law. “It’s all
about the aggressive virtues
when it comes to
these kinds of questions.
Whether that’s for better
or worse, it depends on
your perspective.”
The health care case,
he added, has to be considered
alongside the
justices’ decisions to hear
the hot-button immigration challenge by
Arizona in April and affirmative action
in higher education next term, as well
as their controversial Citizens United campaign
finance ruling in 2010. “This is a
Court that I think has decided that there
is nothing too big for it,” Vladeck said.
The cases are “more a reflection of
where the country is and what the Court
gets drawn into,” said Michael Greve of
the conservative American Enterprise
Institute (AEI). “What is characteristic
of the Court is a perfect willingness to
engage big issues and then to exercise
great care with respect to remedies and
to the autonomy of the branches.”
Political v. Legal
Chief Justice
John Roberts:
His court won’t be
known as a timid
one, said American
University’s Stephen
Vladeck.
If the Court believes the public’s image
of it is partisan after the arguments,
“in the conference room, Chief Justice
Roberts may say, ‘This is the picture we
are putting out there and we have to
be careful not to have another Bush v.
Gore.’ The other justices may say, ‘We
don’t want to do that again,’ or they may
say, ‘We really don’t care,’ ” said Lisa
McElroy, who teaches a Supreme Court
seminar at Drexel University Earle Mack
School of Law.
The federal courts of appeals have
shown there are ways to talk about constitutional
views that are clearly distinct
from what their political views may be,
said Neil Siegel of Duke Law School. “I
didn’t see as much of that in the [health
care] arguments as I would have liked,”
he said. “I saw some in Chief Justice
[John] Roberts and Justice [Anthony]
Kennedy.”
What he saw in Roberts and Kennedy,
he said, were questions to both sides,
questions that reflected justices who
were struggling with the issues, not going
through the motions after having made
up their minds.
“I didn’t see that at all from [Justice
Antonin] Scalia or very much from
[Justice Samuel] Alito,” Siegel said. “I
saw it more from the liberals who were
asking tougher questions of the government
than I saw Roberts and the conservatives
asking of Paul Clement [representing
the challengers].”
No ideological divide emerged in questioning
on the first day of arguments over
whether the Anti-Injunction Act was a
jurisdictional bar to the justices’ review of
the constitutionality of the so-called individual
mandate. To the surprise of many,
the justices generally appeared to have
little sympathy for arguments that the act
stopped the case in its tracks even though
those arguments persuaded a panel of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
and Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C.
Circuit.
“Monday may have been the most
interesting of the three days,” American’s
Vladeck said. “You had a [circuit] court
saying this act was a prudential constraint
and the Supreme Court wholly uninterested
in it.”
But the ideological divide in the questioning
was evident on the second and
third days as the justices took up whether
Congress exceeded its authority under
the commerce clause by enacting the
individual mandate, and whether, if the
mandate is unconstitutional, only the
mandate should be severed from the law.
A great divide
From Justice Stephen Breyer’s recounting
of key commerce clause decisions
upholding the regulation of wheat and
marijuana grown for home consumption
as part of a comprehensive regulatory
scheme to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s
analogy of the health care act to the
Social Security Act, the Court’s four moderate
to liberal members appeared to
embrace the government’s argument that
the mandate was part of a comprehensive
scheme to regulate the financing of
health care.
But the mandate seemed in serious
jeopardy when Kennedy suggested that
the government was altering its relationship
with the individual “in a very fundamental
way,” and the chief justice said
that requiring people to participate in a
market means there are no limits on the
commerce power.
Day two was a good day for conservatives,
several conservative legal bloggers
said. But the unprecedented import
of a ruling striking down the mandate
was obvious to conservatives as well as
liberals.
If the mandate is struck, “this will be
the second consecutive presidency in
which the Supreme Court imposed significant
limits on the primary agenda of
the sitting president in ways that were
unexpected based on precedents at the
time the president acted,” blogged conservative
constitutional scholar Orin Kerr.
Duke’s Siegel said, “At the very least,
the fact that there’s a very good chance
that they’re going to strike down some
or all of this law suggests to me that talk
about humility, modesty and a limited
role is not appropriate when talking about
the Roberts Court. We’re talking about the
Court invalidating on federalism grounds a
very consequential federal law. You would
have to go back to FDR’s confrontation
with the Supreme Court to find a law so
consequential being invalidated.”
Two conflicting approaches to the severability
issue also emerged from the ideological
divide on the third day. Justices
Sonia Sotomayor and Ginsburg indicated
that judicial restraint was served by leaving
to Congress the task of dealing with
the remainder of the law if the mandate
were severed. But Scalia and Kennedy
said it could be a greater wielding of judicial
power to leave a shell of a law that
imposed an uncertain risk of enormous
financial burdens on insurance companies.
During this 90-minute argument, Alito
turned several times to an amicus brief
on behalf of economists opposing the law
to challenge Deputy Solicitor General
Edwin Kneedler’s severability argument.
And Kennedy also sought to assess the
economic fallout on insurance companies
if the government prevailed. Kneedler
said they should look only to the law’s
text and legislative history for whether
Congress intended the bulk of the law to
stand if the mandate were struck down.
See health care, Page 5
diego m. radzinschi

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 5
health care at the high court
health care, from page 4
“What struck me was how deeply
the argument against the law plunged
the justices into issues of economic and
social policy that the Court is ill-equipped
to manage,” said Walter Dellinger of
O’Melveny & Myers, a strong supporter
of the law.
But AEI’s Greve said, “What impressed
me most on the severability issue is how
desperately and earnestly all were angling
for some kind of coherent theory and not
one of these lawyers was able to give
them it. Justice Alito asked Paul Clement
directly, given his initial position [the
entire law must fall] is really extreme,
‘Do you have a fallback’ That’s not some
right-wing ideologue with heels dug in
but someone struggling.”
On day three, the justices also considered
whether the law’s Medicaid expansion
unconstitutionally coerces the states
into participation. No lower court accepted
the states’ coercion argument.
The fact that the Supreme Court
agreed to hear the argument and some
justices, even Roberts, saw a potentially
serious problem with the expansion
“bespeaks the aggressiveness that I think
is the real take-away point for me this
week,” said American’s Vladeck.
Politics or law or both
At the end of the three days, some
legal experts still saw room for compromise
despite the obvious divides on some
issues.
The Court will find it has jurisdiction,
Greve predicted. It rejects the challengers’
positions on Medicaid and severability. It
then strikes down the mandate because it
has been assured there are multiple tools
in the law to achieve many of Congress’
objectives.
“I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised
if it came out that way and it would be
perfectly consistently with the chief’s
approach,” he said.
Or, Harvard Law School’s Laurence
Tribe said, “I think we learned of a possible
compromise position in which the
mandate would be upheld on its face,
leaving open the possibility of later holding
it unconstitutional as applied to challengers
who could prove they would
never purchase health care, a possibility
raised by Justice Kagan.”
And, there is Kennedy. “He appears
more concerned about his, and his
Court’s, public image and legacy than
many of his colleagues, and he knows
that a single vote can ruin a long-standing
reputation,” said Bruce Allen Murphy,
Lafayette College historian and author of
several books on the Court.
With his legacy in mind, Murphy
asked, will Kennedy want to be remembered
for having prevented some 35 million
people from getting adequate health
care insurance protection or for protecting
them by upholding the law
“I believe Kennedy, and thus at least
five members of the Court, will vote with
an eye toward their image in history,
in upholding Obamacare,” the historian
predicted. “The pivot point for this decision,
though, will be more on politics
than the law.”
Marcia Coyle can be contacted at mcoyle@-
alm.com. Tony Mauro can be contacted at
tmauro@alm.com.
SG takes heat for soft-spoken approach
By Tony Mauro
Critics called Verrilli’s argument a “train wreck” for the government,
but some think he’s being unfairly attacked.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.
came in for sharp criticism last week
for his soft-spoken handling of what
are likely to be the most important
oral arguments of his career.
In tone and substance, according
to some who heard him argue on all
three days, Verrilli missed opportunities
to parry hostile justices or his
forceful opponents, while defending
the Affordable Care Act as a valid
exercise of congressional power.
But Verrilli won support
as well, including
from Harvard
Law School professor
Charles Fried, a
Reagan-era predecessor
as SG who also contends
that the health
care law is constitutional.
“He did his job and
he did it very well,”
Fried wrote in a column
for The Daily Beast.
“What Verrilli did not
do is ‘rise’ to the level
of angry declamation
coming at him from
the other side of the
bench. Nor would it
have helped his case if
he had.”
On March 27, when
the issue was the constitutionality
of the
individual mandate,
it was not until his
rebuttal that Verrilli
gave an affirmative
justification for the
law and slammed his
opponents’ “utterly unrealistic” alternatives
for solving the “grave problem”
of delivering health care to all.
On March 28, he sidestepped questions
about whether the government
would, in practice, ever withdraw all
Medicaid funding from a state that
declined to participate in the expansion
of Medicaid coverage envisioned
in the law.
CNN commentator Jeffrey Toobin,
author of a best-selling book on the
Court, went outside on March 27 to
pronounce on the air that the argument
was a “train wreck” for the
government. Toobin asserted that
Verrilli had done a “simply awful”
job and was not “ready with good
answers.”
Carrie Severino, a former Clarence
Thomas clerk, chief counsel to the
Judicial Crisis Network and an ardent
opponent of the Affordable Care Act,
also spoke of Verrilli’s “rough start”
and “stumbling” presentation. Other
critics took Verrilli to task for failing
to give a crisp answer to the request
by conservative justices for a “limiting
principle” that would reassure them
that Verrilli was not asking for unlimited
federal power to cure all ills. In
addition, some said Verrilli should
have repeatedly focused attention on
Court precedents like Gonzales v. Raich
in which the Court gave an expansive
reading to the commerce power
of Congress.
But supporters of the law quickly
came to Verrilli’s defense, asserting
that the contrasting styles of the lawyers
who argued should not obscure
the fact that the SG had made all the
points he had intended to make.
Mayer Brown’s Andrew Pincus,
another veteran advocate who was
in the audience for most of the three
days, said the government had “the
harder side of the stick,” adding that
“the justices asked probing questions,
which is what you would expect of
an argument of this moment and
magnitude.…I think Don did a good
job of explaining why this market is
unique.”
Thomas Goldstein of Goldstein
& Russell, who also watched the
arguments, said the “optics” of an
argument can be affected by factors
entirely outside the control of the
lawyers. The Court’s conservative
justices are sharper questioners, for
example, making their target—in this
case Verrilli—seem like he is always
on the defensive. “It’s easy for Paul
to look brilliant when he has them
on his side,” said Goldstein, referring
to Bancroft partner Paul Clement,
the lead lawyer arguing against the
statute.
By contrast, Goldstein said, liberal
justices usually don’t make their
targets sweat even when they are
asking aggressive questions. “Justice
Sotomayor steps in—and steps on—
her colleagues, and Justice Breyer
will ask a question that lasts three
minutes,” blunting their effectiveness,
Goldstein said. He added that
donald verrilli jr.
Justice Elena Kagan may be the most
effective liberal questioner on the
Court.
On March 28, the liberal justices
turned up the heat and hit Clement
with a fusillade of questions challenging
his argument that the Medicaid
expansion undermines state sovereignty.
For the first 25 minutes of his
argument, the only nonliberal justice
to speak was Antonin Scalia, who
tossed Clement, his former clerk, several
lifelines.
But Clement, while looking somewhat
beleaguered, made it seem otherwise
by answering in a carefree
style that conveys confidence in a
way that Verrilli’s furrowed brow and
serious tone do not. “When Paul does
as good a job as he did,” Goldstein
said, “it’s hard for anyone else to
shine.”
Tony Mauro can be contacted at tmauro@alm.com.
diego m. radzinschi

6 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
health care at the high court
The Arguments: A Summary
Recapping key events during three days of health care arguments at the Supreme Court.
By Tony Mauro
photos by diego m. radzinschi
March 26 March 27 March 28 March 28
Argument Argument first Argument second Argument
Case: Department of Health and Human
Services v. Florida
Issue: Jurisdiction
Duration: 90 minutes
Arguing: Robert Long, Covington &
Burling; Solicitor General Donald
Verrilli Jr.; Gregory Katsas, Jones Day
Summary: The issue was arcane,
but could have been a show-stopper:
Does the Supreme Court even have
jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality
of the Affordable Care Act now
Or does it have to wait until 2015,
when the first taxpayer who refuses
to buy health insurance under the socalled
“individual mandate” is required
to pay a penalty to the IRS
The hurdle is the 1867 Anti-
Injunction Act (AIA), which requires
individuals to pay their tax before they
can challenge the law that created the
tax. But none of the justices seemed
to embrace that argument, indicating
that they believe either that the penalty
is not a tax or that, even if it is,
the AIA does not prevent them from
deciding the merits anyway.
The Obama administration once
invoked the AIA as a way of putting
off challenges to the health law, but
then backed off—prompting the Court
to appoint Covington’s Long to make
the orphaned argument. Long said
respecting the law was important to
the orderly collection of taxes. Verrilli
argued, with seeming success, that yes,
the law is important—but the penalty
used to enforce the mandate is not a
tax.
He did not help himself during the
argument when he inadvertently
called the penalty a tax several times.
“Why do you keep saying tax” Justice
Stephen Breyer asked. Verrilli switched
to the phrase “tax penalty,” and said,
“Thank you, Justice Breyer.”
Katsas tried a different tack, arguing
that the AIA does not apply because
the target of the challenges is the mandate,
not the penalty. But Chief Justice
John Roberts Jr. said that separating
the mandate from the penalty “doesn’t
seem to make much sense,” because
without the penalty, the insurance
requirement would be “completely
toothless.”
Case: Department of Health and Human
Services v. Florida
Issue: Individual mandate
Duration: Two hours
Arguing: Solicitor General Verrilli; Paul
Clement, Bancroft; Michael Carvin, Jones
Day.
Summary: With the jurisdictional issue
seemingly out of the way, the justices
went for the main course: whether the
Affordable Care Act’s requirement that all
Americans, with a few exceptions, obtain
a minimum level of health coverage, is a
constitutional exercise of congressional
power.
During the argument, conservative
justices made their hostility toward the
mandate fairly clear. Supporters of the
law who thought it was headed for an
easy win left the Court that day with
well-founded fears.
Verrilli argued that the mandate is a
necessary and constitutional enactment
intended to make other valid parts of the
law work: namely, “guaranteed issue”
and “community rating,” which bar
insurers from refusing coverage to individuals
based on pre-existing conditions
or medical history.
The health care market is unique,
Verrilli said, because people cannot control
when they enter it or what they need
when they do. Chief Justice Roberts said
the same was true of police, fire, ambulance
and even roadside assistance. Justice
Samuel Alito Jr. offered the funeral
industry as another hypothetical. Justice
Antonin Scalia chimed in with the broccoli
specter: Everyone eats food, so why
can’t the government make everyone
eat broccoli Justice Anthony Kennedy
pressed Verrilli for a “limiting principle.”
After a stretch break at the midway
mark, Clement, representing 26 states
opposed to the law, rose to add fuel
to justices’ skepticism. The power of
Congress to regulate interstate commerce,
he said, does not include forcing people
to enter commerce that did not exist
before. Carvin, representing the National
Federation of Independent Business in
its challenge to the law, said “the failure
to buy health insurance doesn’t affect
anyone,” asserting instead that defaulting
on payments for health care is the real
problem.
Cases: NFIB v. Sebelius; Florida v. HHS
Issue: Severability
Duration: 90 minutes
Arguing: Bancroft’s Clement; Deputy
Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler; H.
Bartow Farr III, Farr & Taranto
Summary: It was another worrisome
morning for supporters of the health care
law. Granted, the working assumption of
the argument was that the individual mandate
will be struck down; the issue under
debate, after all, was what should be done
with the rest of the law if that happens.
But still, it seemed at times that the justices
were thinking of that possibility as more of
a done deal than a hypothetical.
Apart from the arguments by the attorneys,
the focus of the 90 minutes seemed
to be over what would be the most judicially
modest way to deal with the rest of the
law: excising only the individual mandate
and keeping the rest intact, or striking the
entire law and letting Congress start over.
Clement advanced the most sweeping
argument: If the individual mandate is
rejected, “the rest of the act cannot stand.”
Without the mandate, he said, the provisions
barring insurers from rejecting applicants
with pre-existing medical conditions
or history could not operate as Congress
intended. The law, he said repeatedly,
would be a hollow shell.
“What’s wrong with leaving it in the
hands of the people who should be fixing
this, not us” asked Justice Sonia
Sotomayor, a view seemingly shared by
other liberal justices. Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg told Clement, “The more conservative
approach would be salvage rather
than throwing out everything.”
Kneedler, the government’s lawyer,
agreed that “judicial restraint” would call
for a more limited approach if the mandate
is rejected: eliminating only the guaranteedissue
and community-rating provisions,
which depend on the mandate for financing.
But Scalia said, “One way or another,
Congress is going to have to reconsider this,
and why isn’t it better to have them reconsider
it—what should I say—in toto”
Farr was appointed to argue a third
alternative: leaving the entire rest of the
law in place even if the mandate is struck
down. There are other mechanisms in the
law that would make it work without that
provision, he said.
Case: Florida v. HHS
Issue: Medicaid expansion
Duration: Scheduled for one hour, but
lasted 84 minutes.
Lawyers: Bancroft’s Clement; Solicitor
General Verrilli
Summary: The final argument was a
contentious ending to the Court’s extended
examination of the law. The focus was
the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of
Medicaid to include an estimated 16 million
people who are not disabled and
whose income is somewhat above the
poverty line, subsidized almost completely
by federal grants to states. The catch:
The law gives the federal government the
option to withdraw all Medicaid funding
from states that refuse to participate.
Almost immediately after Clement rose
to argue that the law unconstitutionally
coerces states, Justice Elena Kagan
began a sustained barrage of questions
that was picked up by other liberal justices
including Sotomayor, Breyer and
Ginsburg. Kagan presented Clement
with a hypothetical of an employer who
offers a prospective employee $10 million
to work for him. “Now we would
both be agreed that’s not coercive, right”
When Clement demurred, Kagan said,
“Wow, wow. I’m offering you $10 million
a year…and you are saying this is
anything but a great choice” The more
aggressive questioning by justices who
are most likely to support the health care
law seemed to reflect their sense that the
law might be on the ropes and needed
resuscitation.
Verrilli defended the Medicaid expansion
as “an exercise of the spending
clause that complies with all the limits”
set forth in Court precedents.
Verrilli used the final minutes of his
time to sum up his position on the importance
and validity of the Affordable Care
Act. By increasing public access to affordable
health care, Verrilli said, millions of
Americans will be “unshackled from the
disabilities that…diseases put on them
and have the opportunity to enjoy the
blessings of liberty.”
Clement had the last word, stating that
“it’s a very funny conception of liberty,”
when the law requires individuals to purchase
health insurance “whether they
want it or not.”

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 7
health care at the high court
Instant commentaries from the front seats
Practitioners who attended the health care arguments offered on-the-spot analyses of each day’s proceedings.
The National Law Journal asked practitioners
who attended the health care
arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court
last week to provide instant commentaries.
These are collected at www.nlj.com/
healthcare. Below are selected excerpts
from the commentaries.
Anti-Injunction Act
For all the excitement outside the
Supreme Court, the courtroom was surprisingly
subdued, as the justices considered
the somewhat dry issue of the Anti-
Injunction Act (AIA). Indeed, a few of
the justices appeared dangerously close
to nodding off. That said, it appeared
from the questions that the justices are
not eager to delay ruling on the merits
of the constitutional challenge to the
Affordable Care Act (ACA). Many of the
justices questioned whether the AIA is,
in fact, jurisdictional, and if they could
accept the government’s position that the
Anti-Injunction Act does not prevent a
decision on the merits at this point. The
bottom line is that it looks very likely that
the Court will not delay a ruling on the
constitutionality of the mandate until the
provision goes into effect in 2014. For the
American people, and the state leaders
who are already working to implement
the Affordable Care Act in the states, this
is good news.
—Elizabeth Wy d r a, c h i e f c o u n s e l,
Co n s t i t u t i o n a l Ac c o u n t a b i l i t y Ce n t e r
On an argument day that can best be
described as the calm before the storm,
it quickly became clear that the Supreme
Court would reach the constitutional
issues everyone cares about. That is,
regardless of how the justices resolve
the hypertechnical issue of whether the
Anti-Injunction Act is “jurisdictional,”
this law—which prevents people from
challenging taxes before they’re assessed
or collected—does not apply to the
Obamacare litigation. There were also
hints that the Court was skeptical of
the government’s backup merits argument
that the individual mandate was
justified under the Constitution’s taxing
power. Perhaps the only surprising aspect
of today’s hearing was how “cold” the
bench was; it’s rare for the justices to
allow advocates to speak at length without
interruption, but that’s what they
generally did today. That’s yet another
indication that the Court will get past the
AIA appetizer to the constitutional entree.
—Il y a Sh a p i r o, s e n i o r fellow in
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s t u d i e s a t t h e
Ca t o Institute a n d e d i t o r-in-c h i e f o f t h e
Ca t o Su p r e m e Co u r t Re v i e w
Individual mandate
The questions raised by Justice
Anthony Kennedy indicate a growing
concern about the constitutionality of
the individual mandate. While you can
never predict the outcome of a Supreme
Court case based on oral arguments,
it is very encouraging that it appears
a majority of the justices understand
that requiring Americans to purchase
health insurance raises significant constitutional
questions. The concerns were
clear: if the government is permitted
to force Americans to purchase health
insurance, where do you draw the line
Most Americans don’t want ObamaCare,
and we’re hopeful that a majority of the
justices declare the entire health care
law, including the individual mandate,
unconstitutional.
—Ja y Al a n Se k u l o w, c h i e f c o u n s e l o f t h e
Am e r i c a n Ce n t e r f o r La w a n d Justice
One potentially important line of questions
posed to the solicitor general, which
Justice Anthony Kennedy initiated, was
whether any limits on Congress’ commerce
clause power would remain if the
Court were to uphold the constitutionality
of the individual mandate. The solicitor
general answered in the affirmative
but was unable to provide good examples
of how that power would be limited.
In contrast to [March 26], the solicitor
general argued that the penalty imposed
by the individual mandate on Americans
who do not obtain health insurance is
a tax, which Congress has the power to
levy. [On March 26], the solicitor general
argued that the penalty is not a tax and
that, therefore, the Anti-Injunction Act
does not apply. We’ll have to wait and
see whether the government’s seemingly
conflicting view of the mandate can be
reconciled by the Court.
—Ja m e s Napoli, a s e n i o r c o u n s e l a t
Pr o s k a u e r Ro s e w h o c o u n s e l s e m p l o y e r s
o n t h e n e w h e a l t h c a r e l a w
The chief justice and Justice Anthony
Kennedy seem to be the most likely candidates
to join the liberal justices, all of
whom seemed convinced that Congress
had properly used its commerce power.
The chief justice challenged Paul
Clement, representing the states, by saying
that this case is different from the
many hypotheticals that have been presented
because everyone is in the market
for health care, and Justice Kennedy
added that those who do not choose to
buy insurance are in the market in the
sense that they create a risk that affects
the market. The outcome of the case
appears to turn on whether one of those
justices ultimately decides that the health
insurance market is in fact different for
those reasons or whether they instead
decide that upholding the individual
mandate requires a step beyond what
prior commerce clause cases have permitted
that ought not be taken.
—Christopher J. Wr i g h t, p a r t n e r a t
Wiltshire & Gr a n n i s a n d c o u n s e l o f
r e c o r d in a b r i e f f o r Ho u s e De m o c r a t s in
f a v o r o f t h e h e a l t h c a r e l a w
If, as conventional wisdom has it,
Justice Anthony Kennedy is the key to
the constitutionality of the individual
mandate, his questions intimate that the
mandate is doomed. Kennedy pushed
the solicitor general hard on the very
essence of the mandate, inquiring whether
it altered the individual’s relationship
to the federal government in a “fundamental
way.” By affecting individuals as
individuals—rather than their economic
activity—the mandate clearly bothers
Kennedy in a deep, individual-liberty
sense.
As expected, the conservative justices
appeared intent to identify a limiting
principle on the reach of the commerce
power and did not seem satisfied with the
government’s position that health care or
health insurance is “unique.” Similarly,
the liberal justices seemed to have difficulty
distinguishing between the mandate
and prior exercises of the commerce
clause, particularly the Agricultural
Adjustment Act in Wickard v. Filburn.
—Elizabeth Pr i c e Fo l e y, Institute f o r
Justice Ch a i r in c o n s t i t u t i o n a l litigation
a n d professor, Fl o r i d a In t e r n a t i o n a l
Un i v e r s i t y College o f La w
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.’s professed
desire for “judicial restraint”
should push him closer to the side of
the administration (although sometimes
Roberts’ commitment to restraint seems
to be MIA, as we saw in Citizens United).
As Verrilli made clear with his powerful
closing remarks, if the Court does strike
down the act, it will mark a radical shift
in the Constitution’s governmental structure,
in which the courts defer to the
policy choices made by the democratically
elected representatives of the people.
At times, some of the justices—notably
Justice Antonin Scalia—appeared to let
their politics get the better of constitutional
text and precedent. But as several
of the justices affirmed over the course of
the arguments, the courts are not authorized
to sit as a “mini-Congress,” secondguessing
whether a law is good or bad
policy. The Court’s job, as Verrilli emphasized
in his final remarks, is to apply the
Constitution and recognize the broad
powers given to the federal government
by our founding charter, which squarely
support the constitutionality of the health
care reform law. If people (including private
citizen Antonin Scalia) don’t like the
Affordable Care Act, their recourse is at
the ballot box, not in the courts.
—Elizabeth Wy d r a
Severability
The most likely ruling on severability is
that all of Obamacare will fall along with
its fatally flawed individual mandate.
While such a result would be legally correct,
it would still be stunning. Perhaps
even more remarkable is that the severability
argument proceeded under the
general assumption that the mandate
would indeed be struck down. This was
not a mere hypothetical situation about
which the justices speculated, but rather
a very real, even probable, event. There’s
still a possibility that a “third way” will
develop between the government’s position
(mandate plus “guaranteed issue”
and “community rating”) and that of
the challengers (the whole law)—perhaps
Titles I and II, as justices Stephen
Breyer and Samuel Alito Jr. mused (and
as Cato’s brief detailed)—but the only
untenable position would be to sever the
mandate completely from a national regulatory
scheme that obviously wouldn’t
work without it.
—Il y a Sh a p i r o
Unlike [March 27], when they
appeared to be divided along ideological
lines, the justices [on March 28] seemed
to have a common goal of determining
the standard by which the Court should
analyze the severability arguments presented
by the parties. Many of the justices
seemed uneasy with whether and to
what extent legislative intent and detailed
economic analysis should play in their
determination of severability.…In the
end, it is clear that the justices are struggling
with the standard that should be
used in determining what provisions of
the Affordable Care Act must be stricken
should the individual mandate be found
unconstitutional. Current precedent does
not provide a satisfactory answer to this
question. We may see new law developed
or at least current precedent better
harmonized as the Court navigates its
way through the thicket of issues raised
under severability analysis.
—Ja m e s Napoli
Medicaid
expansion
This case would be of substantial jurisprudential
importance if the Court were
to strike down the Medicaid-expansion
provisions. As the chief justice stated,
cooperative federal-state programs under
which the federal government pays a
substantial part of the program are now
common, and such laws always impose
conditions on how the federal funds are
used. If this law falls, many others would
be called into question, and courts would
be faced with the extremely difficult (and
politically charged) task of distinguishing
unconstitutional coercion from permissible
persuasion. But it seems unlikely
that the Court will conclude that the
Medicaid-expansion provision is unconstitutionally
coercive, although it also
seems unlikely that the Court will say
that a law passed by Congress can never
be struck down on the ground that it is
impermissibly coercive.
—Christopher J. Wr i g h t

8 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
health care at the high court
A blazing bench
Here are some of the justices’ comments during arguments
on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The commerce clause power
and the individual mandate
Samuel Alito Jr.
Suppose that you and I walked around
downtown Washington at lunch hour
and we found a couple of healthy young
people and we stopped them and we
said, “You know what you’re doing You
are financing your burial services right
now because eventually you’re going to
die, and somebody is going to have to pay
for it, and if you don’t have burial insurance
and you haven’t saved money for
it, you’re going to shift the cost to somebody
else.” Isn’t that a very artificial way
of talking about what somebody is doing
And if that’s true, why isn’t it equally artificial
to say that somebody who is doing
absolutely nothing about health care is
financing health care services
Anthony Kennedy
Can you create commerce in order to
regulate it
Antonin Scalia
The something else is: Everybody has
to exercise, because there’s no doubt that
lack of exercise cause—causes illness, and
that causes health care costs to go up. So,
the federal government says everybody…
has to join an exercise club. That’s the
something else.
Anthony Kennedy
And here the government is saying
that the federal government has a duty
to tell the individual citizen that it must
act, and that is different from what we
have in previous cases, and that changes
the relationship of the federal government
to the individual in a very fundamental
way.
John Roberts Jr.
But once we say that there is a market
and Congress can require people to participate
in it, as some would say—or as
you would say, that people are already
participating in it—it seems to me that
we can’t say there are limitations on
Turn your good press into great marketing!
Order your reprints as published in The National Law Journal today.
Contact 202-828-0318 or msolomon@alm.com.
Reprints are designed in collaboration with you. Reprints are available for rankings,
individual verdicts, compilations, and more. Our full suite of products are powerful
and versatile to meet your business needs, in print and digitally. Let us help you
leverage this great press.
Product Examples:
Hard Copy Reprints
www.almreprints.com
Introducing
The Power Profile
Martindale-Hubbell ® +
Add
to your Martindale-Hubbell profile on martindale.com.
Highlight your strengths and capabilities. Bring a powerful new perspective
to the way existing clients and prospective clients see your firm.
E-Prints
Make your firm’s profile come to life. Make it a Power Profile.
Call 877-257-3382 or email: reprints@ALM.com
Scan barcode to get a quote.
Plaques
what Congress can do under its commerce
power.…All bets are off, and you
could regulate that market in any rational
way.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Congress, in the ’30s, saw a real problem
of people needing to have old-age
and survivor’s insurance. And, yes, they
did it through a tax, but they said everybody
has got to be in it because if we
don’t have the healthy in it, there’s not
going to be the money to pay for the
ones who become old or disabled or
widowed.…But that’s constitutional. So
if Congress could see this as a problem
when we need to have a group that will
subsidize the ones who are going to get
the benefits, it seems to me you’re saying
the only way that could be done is if the
government does it itself; it can’t involve
the private market, it can’t involve the
private insurers.
Stephen Breyer
I look back into history, and I see it
seems pretty clear that if there are substantial
effects on interstate commerce,
Congress can act. And I look at the person
who’s growing marijuana in her
house, or I look at the farmer who is
growing wheat for home consumption.
This seems to have more substantial
effects.
Elena Kagan
If the effect of all these uninsured
people is to raise everybody’s premiums,
not just when they get sick, if they get
sick, but right now in the aggregate, and
Wickard and Raich tell us we should look
at the aggregate, and the aggregate of
all these uninsured people are increasing
the normal family premium…those
people are in commerce. They are making
decisions that are affecting the price
that everybody pays for this service.
Severability: Just the
mandate or the entire law
Sonia Sotomayor
Why shouldn’t we let Congress do
that, if in fact the economists prove, some
of the economists prove right that prices
will spiral What’s wrong with leaving it
in the hands of the people who should
be fixing this, not us
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
So why should we say it’s a choice
between a wrecking operation, which
is what you are requesting, or a salvage
job. And the more conservative approach
would be salvage rather than throwing
out everything.
Anthony Kennedy
When you say judicial restraint, you
are echoing the earlier premise that it
increases the judicial power if the judiciary
strikes down other provisions of
the act. I suggest to you it might be quite
the opposite. We would be exercising
the judicial power if one provision was
stricken and the others remained to
impose a risk on insurance companies
that Congress had never intended.
Coercion and
Medicaid expansion
Elena Kagan
In other words, the federal government
is here saying: We are giving you a
boatload of money. There’s no matchingfunds
requirement, there are no extraneous
conditions attached to it, it’s just a
boatload of federal money for you to take
and spend on poor people’s health care.
It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to
tell you.
Sonia Sotomayor
I think the usual definition of coercion
is: I don’t have a choice. I’m not
sure what—why it’s not a choice for
the states. If they don’t take Medicaid,
and they want to keep the same level of
coverage, they may have to make cuts in
their budgets to other services they provide.
That’s a political choice of whether
they choose to do that or not. But when
have we defined the right or limited the
right of government not to spend money
in the ways that it thinks appropriate
John Roberts Jr.
Because it does seem like a serious
problem. We are assuming, under the
spending clause, the federal government
cannot do this, under the Constitution
it cannot do this; but, if it gets the state
to agree to it, well, then it can. And the
concern is, if you can say “if you don’t
agree to this you lose all your money,”
whether that’s really saying the limitation
in the Constitution is largely meaningless.
Antonin Scalia
Is there any chance that all 26 states
opposing it have Republican governors,
and all of the states supporting it have
Democratic governors Is that possible

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 9
in-house counsel
Francisco’s Kerr & Wagstaffe for litigation.
“The vast majority of our outside counsel
cases are wage-and-hour issues in the
shift from employee agents to independent
contractors,” Harnett said. “We have
a few patents cases around our technology
and some high-volume, small-amount
cases related to real estate transactions.”
In an outside firm, Harnett values subject-matter
expertise, deep understanding
of her company’s business and efficiency.
Alternative billing can work well in
some contexts, she said. “Using one firm
to handle a high volume of cases, many
of which involve similar factual and legal
issues at a fixed price, definitely drives
efficiency. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen
an alternative billing arrangement that
works well for more complex or unique
matters.”
Harnett considers pro bono experience
“Legal departments are often viewed by
management and boards as cost centers
and not revenue generators,” she said.
“I think it’s important to show my colleagues
and the board the value that the
legal team has brought to the business—
such as projects that have driven strategic
business initiatives and revenue that the
department has saved through efficient
handling of litigation.”
The most significant case before her
department involves an action brought by
the California Department of Labor, alleging
that Zip’s real estate agents were misclassified
as outside sales representatives
and should have been treated as hourly
employees. The company has prevailed
against similar claims in administrative
hearings before the department in the
past, Harnett said. However, last year Zip
settled claims raised on behalf of agents
We’d love to have the magic insight as to
when things will turn [in real estate].”
jason doiy
Samantha Harnett, vice president, general counsel and secretary,
ZipRealty Inc. AGE: 36
Real estate 2.0
company profile
ZipRealty Inc. is a real estate brokerage
that operates through an online database
covering major markets across the United
States. Founded in 1999 in Emeryville,
Calif., today the company has approximately
120 employees and more than
1,500 independent contractors selling real
estate.
Given the difficulties in the market
of late, the company has been turning
to sales of proprietary technology and
online marketing to boost earnings; for
example, it operates Coldwell Banker
Real Estate Corp.’s online sales channel.
The company also reportedly hopes to
market its Web presence as an advertising
venue for agents.
Zip posted 2011 revenues of more than
$85 million, a decline from the nearly
$119 million it brought in during 2010.
According to General Counsel Samantha
Harnett, the company lost more than 10
percent of its work force during the recession,
although none in the legal department.
Zip’s transition from a pure brokerage
to a “hybrid, broker and technology”
contributed to that decline, she said.
Legal Team and outside counsel
Harnett’s department comprises four
attorneys, including one part-timer. She
shares administrative personnel with
other departments and uses outside
counsel on a project basis. When hiring,
Harnett looks for candidates “with excellent
judgment who have the ability to
think strategically across a wide variety of
legal and business issues,” she said. “And
a good sense of humor, because you have
to keep it fun in legal. You’re often the
bearer of bad news, putting out a lot of
fires. Team spirit is also key.”
She estimates that her department
handles 60 percent to 70 percent of work
in-house. When litigating, Harnett tends
to handle smaller cases in-house and
brings in outside firms for larger matters.
She likes Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
for corporate governance and securities
matters; Seattle-based Perkins Coie
for intellectual property work; and San
and diversity both within companies and
in outside firms as key factors in developing
top-notch legal teams. Zip has not
signed the Pro Bono Institute’s Law Firm
Pro Bono Challenge or the Diversity “Call
to Action.” However, during her younger
days as an a associate at Palo Alto,
Calif.’s Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
Harnett won the John Wilson Award for
outstanding achievement in pro bono for
her guardianship work.
Daily Duties
Harnett likes to arrive at work by 7:30
a.m. to field telephone calls from the East
Coast and leaves by 6 p.m., with her laptop
computer in tow. “I generally divide
my time between business meetings
focused on new initiatives and company
growth strategy, and more traditional
legal items, which change daily,” she said.
These include negotiating and drafting
commercial or licensing agreements,
working with the technology team to
develop patent applications, reviewing
advertising initiatives and attending to
litigation or corporate governance. She
also supervises staff projects.
Harnett considers herself a generalist.
“I think most GCs are generalists these
days—particularly with so many companies
facing budget constraints,” she said.
“We’re expected to issue-spot across a
wide variety of practice areas without
having to rely on outside counsel.”
Her department’s biggest challenge
involves the straddling of two businesses—Zip
operates in six markets as a technology
business, while its brokerage business
continues in 17 additional markets.
Whether as a vendor or broker, its future
will rely on the health of the real estate
market. In that regard, “Our guess is as
good as anybody’s,” she said. “We’d love
to have the magic insight as to when
things will turn.”
Harnett considers herself the “chief
marketer” for her department within Zip.
in Kern County, Calif., for $586,000.
Harnett reports to Lanny Baker, Zip’s
president and chief executive officer.
Route to the Top
Harnett graduated from California
State University, Chico, in 1997 with
a bachelor’s degree in political science.
After earning her J.D. from Santa Clara
University School of Law in 2000, she
became an associate at Gordon & Rees in
San Francisco. In 2003, she joined Wilson
Sonsini, where she handled employment,
trade secrets, and mergers and acquisitions.
She came to Zip in 2005 as legal
counsel and moved up to general counsel
in 2010.
Her advice for aspiring general counsel:
“Be ready to learn business,” she said. “As
a general counsel, you’re expected to be
half-lawyer, half-business partner—which
means knowing the finance and business
issues as well as the legal issues. I learned
to read budgets and balance sheets very
quickly after coming in-house.”
Personal
A native of Gainesville, Fla., Harnett
described herself as “an addicted runner”
who competes in marathons; she
ran the Boston Marathon in 2009. She
also enjoys hiking with her dog, a rescue
named Champ.
She’s married to John Harnett, a police
sergeant in Fremont, Calif. The couple
are expecting their first child in April.
Harnett is a founding board member
and volunteer for “Running for a Better
Oakland,” an organization that trains
Oakland, Calif.-area children in the first
through 12th grades for 5,000-kilometer
and half-marathon races.
Last book and movie
The Lock Artist, by Steven Hamilton,
a mystery novel about a safe cracker;
Moneyball.
—Ri c h a r d Acello

10 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
movers
new arrivals
BuckleySandler (Washington): Philip
Cedar joins the firm as counsel to the
New York office and will focus on financial-services
matters including fixedincome
securities and mortgage markets.
Previously, Cedar was a partner at
K&L Gates.
Dykema Gossett: Lewis Landau joins
the firm’s bankruptcy practice as senior
counsel to the Los Angeles office and
will focus on representing public and
privately held businesses, entrepreneurs,
financial institutions and fiduciaries
in Chapter 11 cases. Previously,
Landau worked as a solo practitioner in
Calabasas, Calif.
Woodcock Washburn (Philadelphia):
Michael Kline joins the
firm as partner in the
Atlanta office and will
focus on intellectual
property litigation, prosecution,
licensing and
counseling. Previously,
Michael Kline
Kline was a senior patent
counsel at The Coca-Cola Co.
laterals
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld:
Stephen Davis joins the firm’s energy
and global transactions practice as partner
in the Houston office and will focus
on representing clients in the energy
industry. Previously, Davis was a partner
at Vinson & Elkins.
DLA Piper: Richard Reilly joins the
firm’s global investment-funds practice
as partner in the New York office and
will focus on investment-fund formation.
Previously, Reilly was global cohead
of White & Case’s securitization
group.
Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart (West
Palm Beach, Fla.): Amy
Boulris joins the firm’s
environmental and land
use practice as partner in
the Miami office and will
focus on the defense of
property rights in the
context of eminent
Amy Boulris
domain, inverse condemnation, property-related
civil rights claims and related
land-use litigation. Previously, Boulris
was a partner at Brigham Moore.
Hunton & Williams (Richmond, Va.):
Jeffrey Sullivan joins the firm’s real
estate capital-markets practice as partner
in the Raleigh, N.C., office and will
focus on capital raising, investment and
other strategic transactions. Previously,
Sullivan was a partner at DLA Piper.
Littler Mendelson (San Francisco):
Mark Grushkin and Samuel Stein join
the firm’s employee benefits practice
as partners in the Los Angeles/Century
City office. Grushkin and Stine will
focus on pensions, retirement plans and
other employee benefits. Previously,
Grushkin and Stein were partners at
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory &
Natsis.
Loeb & Loeb: Chelsea Grayson joins the
firm’s corporate department as partner
in the Los Angeles office and will focus
on mergers and acquisitions, corporate
governance, joint ventures and strategic
alliances. Previously, Grayson was a
partner at Jones Day.
Perkins Coie (Seattle): Marcelo Halpern
joins the firm’s licensing and technology
practice as partner in the Chicago
office and will focus on technology and
intellectual property-related matters.
Previously, Halpern was a partner at
Latham & Watkins.
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
(Los Angeles): Edward Anderson joins
the firm’s intellectual property practice
group as partner in the Palo Alto, Calif.,
office and will focus on patent litigation.
Previously, Anderson was a partner at
Sidley Austin.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease
(Columbus, Ohio): Bryan
Falk joins the firm as
partner and will lead the
real estate and finance
practice in the Cleveland
office. He also focuses on
mergers and acquisitions.
Bryan Falk
Previously, Falk was a
partner at McDonald Hopkins.
More online: For associate
movers, visit nlj.com and click on
Associate News.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges (New York):
John Cobb joins the firm’s capitalmarkets
group as partner in the New
York office and will focus on banking
and securities transactions. Previously,
Cobb was chairman of the leveraged
finance practice at Dewey & LeBoeuf.
Movers is compiled and written by Tasha
Norman. Please send material to her at The
National Law Journal, 120 Broadway, Fifth
Floor, New York, N.Y. 10271, or tnorman@-
alm.com.
Instinct only gets you so far
When you’re in the moment, making tough decisions for your business, you need more than a gut reaction.
ALM Legal Intelligence backs you up with the facts—our sound research and comprehensive market data
are second to none, giving you the confidence you need to make the most well-informed choices, always.
Visit ALMLegalIntel.com today. Call: 888-770-5647 or Email: almlegalintel@alm.com
RES-11-02334-ALI-Ad-Final(NLJ-HPH).indd 1
12/12/11 12:40 PM

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 11
Verdicts & settlements
–from staff and alm reports
Administrative law
Judge blocks shipments
of lethal-injection drug
WASHINGTON—A federal judge on
March 27 ruled in favor of a group of
death row inmates seeking
to stop the shipment
of a “misbranded and
unapproved” drug used in
state lethal injections.
U.S. District Judge
Richard Leon ruled that
the U.S. Food and Drug
richard leon
Administration acted “arbitrarily and
capriciously and abused its discretion” in
approving shipments of sodium thiopental,
which is used to induce general anesthesia
during the execution process.
The agency argued that it allowed
the shipments out of deference to law
enforcement officials when it came to
lethal injections. Leon rejected that argument,
writing that federal law clearly
requires the FDA to review and approve
all drugs.
Constitutional law
City settles with lawyer
busted for videotaping cops
BOSTON—The city has paid an attorney
$170,000 to settle his First Amendment
case against the city and three police officers
over his arrest for videotaping police
activity.
Solo practitioner Simon Glik was
arrested in October 2007 after openly
using his cellphone to record police making
an arrest on the Boston Common. In
August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
1st Circuit ruled that videotaping police
is “unambiguously” a protected First
Amendment right.
The settlement covers Glik’s damages
and legal fees, according to a March 27
announcement by the American Civil
Liberties Union of Massachusetts. “The
law had been clear for years that openly
recording a video is not a crime,” Glik
said.
Criminal law
Company settles charges
that it bribed public doctors
WASHINGTON—Medical device maker
Biomet Inc. has agreed to pay a $17.2
million criminal penalty in a foreign bribery
case, the U.S. Justice Department said
on March 26.
Biomet entered a deferred-prosecution
agreement with federal prosecutors. The
Indiana-based company also settled with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
agreeing to pay $4.4 million in
disgorgement and $1.1 million in prejudgment
interest.
The government said subsidiaries and
agents of Biomet bribed public doctors in
Argentina, Brazil and China for nearly a
decade.
Following mistrials, U.S.
abandons bribery charges
WASHINGTON—Federal prosecutors on
March 27 asked a federal judge to throw
out charges against three businessmen
who earlier pleaded guilty to violating
anti-bribery laws in a high-profile undercover
sting.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon
said he would grant the U.S. Justice
Department’s request. The government’s
move came weeks after the government
abandoned its Foreign Corrupt Practice
Act case following two mistrials.
Prosecutor Joseph Lipton said that the
government still has an active investigation
against one of the defendants, Daniel
Alvirez, for his alleged role in the sale of
military and law enforcement equipment
to the Republic of Georgia.
Evidence
Same-sex couple wins
retroactive privilege
PHILADELPHIA—A state trial judge retroactively
applied the spousal testimonial
privilege to a same-sex couple who were
married in California in 2008, but whose
partnership was not legally recognized in
Delaware until the state’s civil union law
took effect on Jan. 1.
Dentsply International Inc. filed a subpoena
seeking a list of documents from
Kenneth Lanza, plaintiff David Thiel’s
spouse, including items related to personal
conversations shared before Delaware
began recognizing civil unions on Jan. 1.
Thiel had sued the company for alleged
discrimination.
Dentsply agreed to a stipulated order
granting retroactive privileges to the
couple even for conversations they had
before Jan. 1, and Delaware Superior
Court Judge Joseph Slights III approved.
International law
Judge blocks seizure of
Argentina-owned patents
NEW YORK—Rebuffing an effort to satisfy
judgments that bondholders have
obtained against Argentina, a federal
judge refused to attach 47 U.S. patents or
pending patent applications connected to
Argentine state entities.
Foreign countries typically are immune
from attachment unless a plaintiff can
prove an exception under the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act. One major
exception is that a foreign government’s
property was “used for a commercial
activity in the United States.”
In a March 22 ruling, U.S. District
Judge Thomas Griesa said that he saw no
evidence that 45 of the 47
patents were in commercial
use in the United
States. “The filing of patent
applications and the
obtaining of patents represent
at most the generation
of a property interest,
not its commercial use,” he wrote.
thomas griesa
Internet law
ISPs must turn over names
of pornography file-sharers
PHILADELPHIA—Internet service providers
have to disclose the names of subscribers
accused of using a file-sharing site
to copy a pornographic movie, a federal
judge has ruled in a copyright infringement
suit.
U.S. District Court Judge Mary
McLaughlin said that while Internet
users have an expectation of privacy, that
doesn’t apply when they are allegedly
infringing on another party’s copyright.
Since the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
for the 3d Circuit hasn’t ruled on the
point, McLaughlin adopted a five-point
test followed by the 2d Circuit. “A Doe
defendant who has allegedly used the
Internet to unlawfully download and disseminate
copyrighted material does not
have a significant expectation of privacy,”
she wrote.
Legal profession
Ford withheld information
about litigation insurance
ATLANTA—Two additional Georgia judges
have ordered new trials in wrongful-death
suits won by Ford Motor Co.
because, the judges said, the automaker
deliberately withheld information about
insurance policies that might help pay
large verdicts.
Recent decisions by judges in Marietta,
Ga., and Augusta, Ga., followed the
example of Cobb County State Court
Judge Kathryn Tanksley, who last year
struck part of Ford’s defense in a wrongful-death
case and tossed its lead lawyers
after they acknowledged that their client
carried verdict insurance—even though
the automaker had denied it during discovery.
Georgia law requires that jurors be
screened for relationships with all parties
to a lawsuit, including insurance companies
that could be called upon to pay a
judgment resulting from the trial.
Torts
Judge allows Chiquita
to appeal ruling on torture
MIAMI—A federal judge will allow
Chiquita Brands International Inc. to
pursue a pretrial appeal in lawsuits claiming
the company was complicit in killings
by Colombian paramilitary forces.
U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra in
West Palm Beach, Fla., is overseeing the
multidistrict litigation involving 13 lawsuits
filed by families on behalf of thousands
of Colombian workers—some of
them union organizers—who were kidnapped,
tortured and killed by guerrillas.
Marra dismissed several claims in the
2010 lawsuits but let stand accusations
of torture, war crimes and extrajudicial
killing. On March 27, he authorized
Cincinnati-based Chiquita’s request for
an interlocutory appeal. A case is before
the U.S. Supreme Court testing whether
corporations are liable under the Alien
Tort Statute for human rights violations.
Trusts and estates
Settlement slices bequest
in half for socialite’s son
NEW YORK—The long dispute over the
estate of socialite philanthropist Brooke
Astor ended on March 28
with a settlement that
freed $100 million for
charities and slashed the
amount going to her son,
Anthony Marshall, who
was convicted of bilking
her.
eric schneiderman
The agreement among Astor’s descendants
and New York City institutions
including the Metropolitan Museum of
Art, the New York Public Library and the
city’s public schools ended a five-year
legal fight before Westchester County,
N.Y., Surrogate Anthony Scarpino, who
approved the deal.
State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman,
whose office stepped in to protect
the charities, said the agreement cuts
by more than half, $14.5 million, the
amount going to Marshall. Astor died
in 2007 at age 105. In 2009, Marshall
was convicted of taking advantage of his
mother’s dementia, partly by engineering
changes to her will. He has appealed.
rick kopstein; diego m. radzinschi

12 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ April 2, 2012
congratulations and tHanks
to last year’s Biggest Heart Winners.
2011 Firm WitH tHe Biggest Heart
doW LohnEs pLLc
The Dow Lohnes team raised more than $15,500 and proved for the 14th
consecutive year that lawyers really do have heart (and staff, family & friends too)!
2011 company WitH tHe Biggest Heart
A heartfelt thanks to the Navigant team for raising almost $4,000 as a corporate
group to support the lifesaving efforts of the AHA mission.
2011 team WitH tHe Biggest Heart
booz aLLEn hamiLton RUnning cLUb
A big thank you to the Booz Allen Hamilton Running Club which brought out the
largest team of registrants for Lawyers Have Heart for the third straight year!
2011 individual WitH tHe Biggest Heart
RichaRd L. FRank, Esq.
Lawyers Have Heart co-founder Rick Frank ran away with the top title
again raising more than $9,000. Thank you, Rick, and your supporters for
contributing life-saving dollars to the mission of AHA!
2011 laW scHool WitH tHe Biggest Heart
amERican UnivERsity Washington
coLLEgE oF LaW
The American University law school team, led by team captain Elizabeth
Shen, accumulated points by fundraising, and recruiting runners, walkers and
volunteers to claim the law school title.
LAWYERS HAVE HEART XXII
10K RUN & FUN WALK JUNE 9, 2012
10K Run & Fun WalK
LAWYERS
The Washington Harbour at Georgetown
June HAVE 9, 2012
HEART XXII
Presented in Partnership by
10K RUN & FUN WALK JUNE 9, 2012
10K RUN & FUN WALK JUNE 9, 2012
The Washington Harbour at Georgetown
The Washington Harbour at Georgetown
Presented in Partnership by
Presented in Partnership by
For more inFormation, to register
and to support the cause go to
www.LawyersHaveHeartDC.org
LaW schooL chaLLEngE 2012
Lawyers Have Heart invites Washington, DC area law schools to participate in the Law School Challenge,
giving law students the opportunity to prove that their school has the biggest heart!
Win points by: Registering to Run or Walk • Fundraising and Donating • Volunteering
The winning law school will receive a plaque commemorating the victory, bragging rights for the year, and a special prize
package, including breakfast with a Managing Partner of a top DC law firm.
Visit www.Lawyershaveheartdc.org or email elizabeth.raynor@heart.org for more details.

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 13
The NLJ
Regional Report
Where are America’s biggest firms putting their
resources This special report on regional data collected
from our NLJ 250 survey of America’s largest law firms
attempts to answer that question. Every office at every
NLJ 250 firm is reflected here, nearly 3,000 in all.
As we reported in our March 26 issue, available
online at NLJ.com/NLJ250, U.S. firms saw marginal
growth in headcount in the 2012 survey, reporting an
overall headcount of more than 126,000 attorneys, up
1.7 percent. The growth wasn’t universal, however.
Headcount declined slightly in major U.S. markets like
New York and Washington. But those drops were offset
by increases internationally, including in London,
which added 469 lawyers thanks in large part to the
SNR Denton merger, and in China, where big U.S.
firms added 200 lawyers. (The NLJ 250 now reports
about 2,250 lawyers in China.) For more marketspecific
data in days to come, stay tuned to NLJ.com.
Largest law firm offices in the United States
More than 19,000 lawyers work in the 50 largest U.S. offices.
Rank Firm Office location Lawyers in office
1 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom New York 738
2 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison New York 636
3 Kirkland & Ellis Chicago 591
4 Davis Polk & Wardwell New York 571
5 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett New York 563
6 Weil, Gotshal & Manges New York 551
7 Sullivan & Cromwell New York 524
8 Sidley Austin Chicago 502
9 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton New York 481
10 Dewey & LeBoeuf New York 476
11 Ropes & Gray Boston 471
12 Debevoise & Plimpton New York 465
13 Cravath, Swaine & Moore New York 451
14 Hogan Lovells Washington 433
15 Arnold & Porter Washington 429
16 Covington & Burling Washington 429
17 Goodwin Procter Boston 404
18 White & Case New York 402
19 Mayer Brown Chicago 389
20 Alston & Bird Atlanta 370
21 Willkie Farr & Gallagher New York 366
22 Winston & Strawn Chicago 358
23 Proskauer Rose New York 357
24 King & Spalding Atlanta 346
25 Schulte Roth & Zabel New York 346
26 Shearman & Sterling New York 339
27 Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson New York 338
28 Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy New York 335
29 Sidley Austin New York 333
30 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Palo Alto, Calif. 332
31 Latham & Watkins New York 324
32 Jones Day New York 317
33 McDermott Will & Emery Chicago 310
34 Kirkland & Ellis New York 308
35 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr Washington 306
36 Shook, Hardy & Bacon Kansas City, Mo. 303
37 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Philadelphia 302
38 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft New York 298
39 Jenner & Block Chicago 297
40 Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel New York 294
41 Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman New York 292
42 Kaye Scholer New York 290
43 Faegre & Benson Minneapolis 289
44 Crowell & Moring Washington 282
45 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Washington 281
46 Vinson & Elkins Houston 279
47 Morrison & Foerster San Francisco 274
48 Cahill Gordon & Reindel New York 273
49 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher New York 273
50 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan New York 273
Foreign powers
Largest international offices of NLJ 250 firms
Rank Firm City Country Total lawyers
1 Hogan Lovells London England 526
2 DLA Piper London England 353
3 Baker & McKenzie London England 285
4 SNR Denton London England 272
5 White & Case London England 270
6 Mayer Brown London England 255
7 Reed Smith London England 243
8 Baker & McKenzie Sydney Australia 197
9 Latham & Watkins London England 185
10 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey London England 179
11 Baker & McKenzie Hong Kong China 170
11 Mayer Brown Hong Kong China 170
13 Baker & McKenzie Amsterdam The Netherlands 158
13 Jones Day London England 158
15 DLA Piper Leeds England 156
16 Baker & McKenzie Tokyo Japan 139
17 K&L Gates London England 133
18 Baker & McKenzie Paris France 128
19 Baker & McKenzie São Paulo Brazil 117
19 DLA Piper Manchester England 117
19 Hogan Lovells Paris France 117
19 Morrison & Foerster Tokyo Japan 117
23 Baker & McKenzie Madrid Spain 114
24 White & Case Paris France 112
25 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom London England 109
Foreign countries with the most
NLJ 250 lawyers
1 United Kingdom 5,941
2 China 2,249
3 Germany 1,865
4 France 1,570
5 Italy 673
Methodology
6 Belgium 668
7 Japan 658
8 Australia 627
9 Russia 602
10 Spain 396
For the NLJ 250 survey of the nation’s largest law firms, lawyer totals are based
on the average number of full-time equivalent attorneys for the period Jan. 1 to Dec.
31, 2011. The National Law Journal sent surveys to hundreds of law firms to determine
the 250 largest. Lawyer counts do not include contract or temporary attorneys.
A firm must have more lawyers based in the United States than in any other single
country to be included in our survey. Firms are ranked by the number of full-time
equivalent attorneys. Full-time equivalent numbers are rounded to the nearest
whole number.

14 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
the nlj 250 regional report
Ranking the states: Where do big firm lawyers work
Rank
State
NLJ 250 lawyers
2012
NLJ 250 lawyers
2011
% change
Headcount
change
NLJ 250 firm with most lawyers in state (total)
1 New York 22,242 22,443 -0.9% (201) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (738)
2 California 14,579 14,479 0.7% 100 Latham & Watkins (603)
3 District of Columbia 12,636 12,687 -0.4% (51) Hogan Lovells (433)
4 Illinois 7,338 7,345 -0.1% (7) Kirkland & Ellis (591)
5 Texas 6,492 6,471 0.3% 21 Vinson & Elkins (487)
6 Pennsylvania 4,536 4,521 0.3% 15 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (328)
7 Florida 4,005 3,541 13.1% 464 Akerman Senterfitt (379)
8 Massachusetts 3,775 3,485 8.3% 290 Ropes & Gray (471)
9 Georgia 2,992 3,149 -5.0% (157) Alston & Bird (370)
10 Ohio 2,667 2,717 -1.8% (50) Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease (310)
11 Missouri 2,591 2,664 -2.7% (73) Husch Blackwell (361)
12 New Jersey 2,210 2,221 -0.5% (11) McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter (202)
13 North Carolina 1,750 1,852 -5.5% (102) Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice (276)
14 Virginia 1,699 1,781 -4.6% (82) McGuireWoods (294)
15 Minnesota 1,636 1,632 0.2% 4 Faegre & Benson (289)
16 Michigan 1,523 1,670 -8.8% (147) Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone (255)
17 Colorado 1,313 1,402 -6.3% (89) Holland & Hart (190)
18 Arizona 1,239 1,188 4.3% 51 Snell & Wilmer (221)
19 Tennessee 1,180 1,145 3.1% 35 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz (238)
20 Indiana 1,157 936 23.6% 221 Barnes & Thornburg (277)
21 Washington 1,076 1,125 -4.4% (49) Perkins Coie (268)
22 Wisconsin 1,069 1,062 0.7% 7 Foley & Lardner (251)
23 Alabama 934 978 -4.5% (44) Bradley Arant Boult Cummings (185)
24 Kentucky 683 560 22.0% 123 Frost Brown Todd (152)
25 Louisiana 671 676 -0.7% (5) Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrère & Denègre (203)
26 Maryland 665 676 -1.6% (11) Miles & Stockbridge (186)
27 Connecticut 611 607 0.7% 4 Robinson & Cole (147)
28 South Carolina 560 571 -1.9% (11) Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough (199)
29 Mississippi 434 354 22.6% 80 Butler, Snow, O’Mara, Stevens & Cannada (119)
30 Oregon 418 414 1.0% 4 Stoel Rives (144)
31 Nevada 398 399 -0.3% (1) Lewis and Roca (52)
32 West Virginia 383 370 3.5% 13 Steptoe & Johnson PLLC (187)
33 Delaware 314 322 -2.5% (8) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (57)
34 Utah 257 281 -8.5% (24) Stoel Rives (68)
35 Nebraska 187 191 -2.1% (4) Kutak Rock (133)
36 Oklahoma 184 - - - McAfee & Taft (183)
37 Rhode Island 111 112 -0.9% (1) Edwards Wildman Palmer (69)
38 Kansas 107 113 -5.3% (6) Polsinelli Shughart (40)
39 Alaska 70 65 7.7% 5 Davis Wright Tremaine (14)
40 Idaho 66 65 1.5% 1 Holland & Hart (37)
41 Arkansas 39 40 -2.5% (1) Kutak Rock (38)
42 Iowa 36 36 0.0% - Faegre & Benson (19)
43 New Mexico 32 36 -11.1% (4) Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck (11)
44 New Hampshire 31 26 19.2% 5 Nixon Peabody (17)
45 North Dakota 22 14 57.1% 8 Fredrikson & Byron (16)
46 Wyoming 22 23 -4.3% (1) Holland & Hart (19)
47 Montana 17 16 6.3% 1 Holland & Hart (12)
48 Maine 11 10 10.0% 1 Fisher & Phillips (6)
49 Vermont 0 - - - N/A
49 Hawaii 0 - - - N/A
49 South Dakota 0 - - - N/A

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 15
The NLJ
Top 25 U.S. Markets
Regional Report
More than 126,000 attorneys work for firms listed on the NLJ 250. And of
those, nearly 70 percent work in the 25 markets listed in the pages that
follow. We’ve ranked markets by NLJ 250 headcount and have included 23
major cities and two other distinct markets—Orange County, Calif., and
Northern New Jersey—with large concentrations of lawyers. City totals
include lawyers in suburban offices.
Washington
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 2
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 193
Chicago
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 3
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 78
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
13,423
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
7,214
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
13,503
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
7,222
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) -0.6%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) -0.1%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
10.6%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
5.7%
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
70
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
92
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 1
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 177
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250 firms (2012) 21,364
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250 firms (2011) 21,599
Office
This market contains the largest U.S. office for the following firms
• Boies, Schiller & Flexner
• Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
• Cahill Gordon & Reindel
• Chadbourne & Parke
• Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
• Cravath, Swaine & Moore
• Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
• Davis Polk & Wardwell
• Debevoise & Plimpton
• Dewey & LeBoeuf
• DLA Piper
• Epstein Becker & Green
• Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
• Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy
• Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
New York
Total
Lawyers
1
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom
738
2
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison
636
3 Davis Polk & Wardwell 571
4 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 563
5 Weil, Gotshal & Manges 551
6 Sullivan & Cromwell 524
7 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 481
8 Dewey & LeBoeuf 476
9 Debevoise & Plimpton 465
10 Cravath, Swaine & Moore 451
• Greenberg Traurig
• Hughes Hubbard & Reed
• Jones Day
• Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman
• Kaye Scholer
• Kelley Drye & Warren
• Kenyon & Kenyon
• Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
• Latham & Watkins
• Loeb & Loeb
• Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy
• Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler
• Paul Hastings
• Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) -1.1%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in this
market
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in this
market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices in Market
Office
16.9%
121
Total
Lawyers
11 White & Case 402
12 Willkie Farr & Gallagher 366
13 Proskauer Rose 357
14 Schulte Roth & Zabel 346
15 Shearman & Sterling 339
16
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &
Jacobson
338
17
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley
& McCloy
335
18 Sidley Austin 333
19 Latham & Watkins 324
20 Jones Day 317
• Proskauer Rose
• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
• Schulte Roth & Zabel
• Shearman & Sterling
• Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
• Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
& Flom
• SNR Denton
• Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
• Sullivan & Cromwell
• Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
• Weil, Gotshal & Manges
• White & Case
• Willkie Farr & Gallagher
• Wilson Elser Moskowitz
Edelman & Dicker
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Office
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
& Feld
• Arent Fox
• Arnold & Porter
• Covington & Burling
• Crowell & Moring
• Dickstein Shapiro
• Finnegan, Henderson,
Farabow, Garrett & Dunner
• Hogan Lovells
Total
Lawyers
1 Hogan Lovells 433
2 Arnold & Porter 429
3 Covington & Burling 429
4
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr
306
5 Crowell & Moring 282
6
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
& Flom
281
7 Williams & Connolly 264
8 Latham & Watkins 260
9 Steptoe & Johnson LLP 259
10 Wiley Rein 258
11 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 251
12 Sidley Austin 249
13 Patton Boggs 242
14 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 237
15 Jones Day 233
16
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
Garrett & Dunner
229
17 Dickstein Shapiro 220
18 Venable 207
19 Kirkland & Ellis 199
20 Arent Fox 197
• Holland & Knight
• Patton Boggs
• Pillsbury Winthrop
Shaw Pittman
• Steptoe & Johnson LLP
• Venable
• Wiley Rein
• Williams & Connolly
• Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Office
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Baker & McKenzie
• Chapman and Cutler
• Dykema Gossett
• Hinshaw & Culbertson
• Jenner & Block
• Katten Muchin
Rosenman
• Kirkland & Ellis
• Mayer Brown
Total
Lawyers
1 Kirkland & Ellis 591
2 Sidley Austin 502
3 Mayer Brown 389
4 Winston & Strawn 358
5 McDermott Will & Emery 310
6 Jenner & Block 297
7 Katten Muchin Rosenman 254
8 Seyfarth Shaw 213
9 Baker & McKenzie 211
10 Schiff Hardin 197
11 Vedder Price 192
12 DLA Piper 179
13
Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom
178
14 Jones Day 174
15 Chapman and Cutler 164
16 K&L Gates 163
17 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg 161
18 Hinshaw & Culbertson 154
19 Latham & Watkins 153
20 Foley & Lardner 135
• McDermott Will &
Emery
• Neal Gerber &
Eisenberg
• Schiff Hardin
• Seyfarth Shaw
• Sidley Austin
• Vedder Price
• Winston & Strawn

16 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
the NLj 250 market report
SAN FRANCISCO
BAY AREA
LOS ANGELES
BOSTON
PHILADELPHIA
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 4
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 5
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 6
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 7
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 149
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 115
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 53
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 51
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
5,921
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
5,876
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
3,760
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
3,406
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
6,156
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
5,742
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
3,485
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
3,261
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) -3.8%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) 2.3%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) 7.9%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) 4.4%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
4.7%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
4.7%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
3.0%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
2.7%
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
39
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
51
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
71
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
67
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Office
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Cooley
• Fenwick & West
• Gordon & Rees
• Littler Mendelson
• Morrison & Foerster
Total
Lawyers
1
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati
332
2
Morrison & Foerster (San
Francisco)
274
3
Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe (San Francisco)
188
4 Cooley 173
5 Fenwick & West 149
6 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 121
7 Reed Smith 121
8
Latham & Watkins (San
Francisco)
116
9
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman
113
10 Gordon & Rees 110
11
Morrison & Foerster
(Palo Alto, Calif.)
101
12 Sedgwick 100
13 Bingham McCutchen 96
14 Jones Day 92
15
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith
92
16
Latham & Watkins (Menlo
Park, Calif.)
86
17 Kirkland & Ellis 86
18
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
(Menlo Park, Calif.)
84
19 O’Melveny & Myers 82
20 Nixon Peabody 79
• Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe
• Sedgwick
• Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati
Office
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Allen Matkins Leck
Gamble Mallory &
Natsis
• Best Best & Krieger
• Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher
• Irell & Manella
• Jackson Lewis
Total
Lawyers
1 Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith 257
2 Latham & Watkins 241
3 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 233
4
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan
192
5
O’Melveny & Myers (Los
Angeles–downtown)
166
6 Sidley Austin 147
7 Munger, Tolles & Olson 145
8 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips 144
9 Irell & Manella 130
10 Loeb & Loeb 130
11 Paul Hastings 130
12
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
& Flom
129
13
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton
125
14 Seyfarth Shaw 118
15 Jones Day 92
16 Reed Smith 92
17 Greenberg Traurig 89
18 Morrison & Foerster 89
19
O’Melveny & Myers (Los
Angeles–Century City)
81
20 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 80
• Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
& Smith
• Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips
• Munger, Tolles & Olson
• O’Melveny & Myers
• Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton
Office
Total
Lawyers
1 Ropes & Gray 471
2 Goodwin Procter 404
3
Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr
268
4
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris,
Glovsky and Popeo
226
5 Bingham McCutchen 213
6 Edwards Wildman Palmer 189
7 Foley Hoag 178
8 Goulston & Storrs 140
9 Nixon Peabody 133
10 K&L Gates 104
11 Holland & Knight 103
12 Proskauer Rose 100
13 Morrison Mahoney 87
14 Brown Rudnick 79
15 Seyfarth Shaw 73
16 McCarter & English 72
17 Greenberg Traurig 69
18 Foley & Lardner 60
19 Fish & Richardson 59
20 McDermott Will & Emery 58
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Bingham McCutchen
• Brown Rudnick
• Edwards Wildman Palmer
• Fish & Richardson
• Foley Hoag
• Goodwin Procter
• Goulston & Storrs
• Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo
• Morrison, Mahoney
• Nixon Peabody
• Ropes & Gray
Office
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Archer & Greiner
• Ballard Spahr
• Blank Rome
• Cozen O’Connor
• Dechert
• Drinker Biddle &
Reath
• Duane Morris
• Fox Rothschild
Total
Lawyers
1 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 302
2 Pepper Hamilton 234
3 Blank Rome 222
4 Cozen O’Connor 211
5 Ballard Spahr 209
6 Dechert 189
7 Drinker Biddle & Reath 188
8 Duane Morris 168
9 White and Williams 146
10 Reed Smith 143
11 Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young 134
12
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner,
Coleman & Goggin (Philadelphia)
126
13
Archer & Greiner (Haddonfield,
N.J.)
114
14 Fox Rothschild (Philadelphia) 93
15 Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis 83
16 Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott 74
17 Saul Ewing 73
18 Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney 67
19
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman
& Goggin (Cherry Hill, N.J.)
51
20 Fox Rothschild (Exton, Pa.) 40
• Marshall, Dennehey, Warner,
Coleman & Goggin
• Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
• Pepper Hamilton
• Saul Ewing
• Schnader Harrison Segal
& Lewis
• Stradley Ronon Stevens
& Young
• White and Williams

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 17
the NLj 250 market report
ATLANTA
DALLAS
HOUSTON
MIAMI
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 8
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 9
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 10
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 11
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 44
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 51
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 58
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 78
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
2,987
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
2,799
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
2,720
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
2,089
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
2,987
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
2,806
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
2,765
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
1,913
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) -5.0%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) -0.2%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) -1.6%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) 9.2%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
2.4%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
2.2%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
2.2%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
1.7%
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
68
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
55
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
47
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
27
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Office
Total
Lawyers
Office
Total
Lawyers
Office
Total
Lawyers
Office
Total
Lawyers
1 Alston & Bird 370
1 Haynes and Boone 208
1 Vinson & Elkins 279
1 Greenberg Traurig (Miami) 157
2 King & Spalding 346
3
Kilpatrick Townsend &
Stockton
203
4 Troutman Sanders 185
5 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan 172
6 McKenna Long & Aldridge 156
7 Jones Day 134
8 Smith, Gambrell & Russell 116
9 Bryan Cave 98
10 Greenberg Traurig 97
11
Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough
84
12 Seyfarth Shaw 75
13
Womble Carlyle Sandridge
& Rice
60
14
Baker, Donelson, Bearman,
Caldwell & Berkowitz
57
15 Paul Hastings 51
16 Ford & Harrison 46
17 Miller & Martin 46
18 McGuireWoods 45
19 Hunton & Williams 44
20 DLA Piper 38
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Alston & Bird
• Fisher & Phillips
• Ford & Harrison
• Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
• McKenna Long & Aldridge
• Smith, Gambrell & Russell
2 Thompson & Knight 169
3 Jones Day 163
4 Locke Lord 156
5 Gardere Wynne Sewell 143
6 Baker Botts 141
7 Fulbright & Jaworski 132
8 Vinson & Elkins 128
9 Winstead 115
10 Jackson Walker 114
11 K&L Gates 95
12
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
& Feld
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Gardere Wynne Sewell
• Haynes and Boone
• Jackson Walker
• Locke Lord
• McKool Smith
• Strasburger & Price
94
13 Hunton & Williams 90
14 Patton Boggs 87
15 Strasburger & Price 82
16 Weil, Gotshal & Manges 78
17 Andrews Kurth 74
18 McKool Smith 58
19 Baker & McKenzie 52
20 Greenberg Traurig 46
2 Fulbright & Jaworski 227
3 Baker Botts 222
4 Bracewell & Giuliani 212
5 Andrews Kurth 176
6 Locke Lord 141
7 Haynes and Boone 106
8 Gardere Wynne Sewell 86
9 King & Spalding 79
10 Jackson Walker 74
11 Baker & Hostetler 70
12 Thompson & Knight 64
13
Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Andrews Kurth
• Baker Botts
• Bracewell & Giuliani
61
14 Winstead 57
15 Jones Day 49
16
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
& Feld
46
17 Greenberg Traurig 46
18 Baker & McKenzie 44
19 Mayer Brown 44
20 Latham & Watkins 38
2 Akerman Senterfitt (Miami) 137
3 Holland & Knight (Miami) 97
4 Carlton Fields 93
5 Shutts & Bowen 86
6 White & Case 76
7
Cole, Scott & Kissane
(Miami)
66
8
Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart
(West Palm Beach)
61
9
Greenberg Traurig (Fort
Lauderdale)
60
10
Akerman Senterfitt (Fort
Lauderdale)
47
11 Shook, Hardy & Bacon 39
12
Akerman Senterfitt (West
Palm Beach)
38
13
Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart
(Fort Lauderdale)
36
14 Hunton & Williams 36
15 K&L Gates 36
16 GrayRobinson 34
17
18
Cole, Scott & Kissane
(West Palm Beach)
Holland & Knight (Fort
Lauderdale)
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Akerman Senterfitt
• Cole, Scott & Kissane
34
32
19 Hogan Lovells 32
20 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey 32
• Sutherland Asbill & Brennan
• Thompson & Knight
• Fulbright & Jaworski
• Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer
• Troutman Sanders
• Winstead
• Vinson & Elkins
• Shutts & Bowen

18 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
the NLj 250 market report
2,894
Number of branch
offices reported by
NLJ 250 firms in 2012.
MINNEAPOLIS
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 12
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 20
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
1,626
1,625
NORTHERN
NEW JERSEY
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 13
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 39
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
1,607
1,615
ST. LOUIS
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 14
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 19
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
1,376
1,430
Jones Day has
the most lawyers
based in the
United States,
1,742
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) 0.1%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) -0.5%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) -3.8%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
1.3%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
1.3%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
1.1%
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Office
Total
Lawyers
1 Faegre & Benson 289
2 Dorsey & Whitney 237
3 Fredrikson & Byron 216
4 Leonard, Street and Deinard 172
5 Lindquist & Vennum 160
6
7
Briggs and Morgan
(Minneapolis)
Robins, Kaplan, Miller &
Ciresi
159
156
8 Bowman and Brooke 45
9 Fish & Richardson 33
10 Barnes & Thornburg 27
11 Hinshaw & Culbertson 27
12 Littler Mendelson 26
13 Stoel Rives 19
14 Briggs and Morgan (St. Paul) 17
15 Fulbright & Jaworski 14
16 Jackson Lewis 9
17
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart
18 Ford & Harrison 7
19 DLA Piper 4
20 Kutak Rock 1
81
8
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Office
Total
Lawyers
1 Lowenstein Sandler 192
2 McCarter & English 178
3
McElroy, Deutsch,
Mulvaney & Carpenter
(Morristown)
140
4 Gibbons 133
5 Day Pitney 116
6 Drinker Biddle & Reath 72
7 Greenberg Traurig 65
8 Patton Boggs 59
9
10
Wilson Elser Moskowitz
Edelman & Dicker
McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney
& Carpenter (Newark)
58
49
11 LeClairRyan 48
12 K&L Gates 47
13 Fox Rothschild 44
14
Marshall, Dennehey,
Warner, Coleman & Goggin
39
15 Jackson Lewis 37
16 Proskauer Rose 33
17 Epstein Becker & Green 29
18 Archer & Greiner 26
19 Littler Mendelson 22
41
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Office
Total
Lawyers
1 Bryan Cave 228
2
Thompson Coburn
(St. Louis)
225
3 Armstrong Teasdale 189
4 Husch Blackwell 187
5
Greensfelder, Hemker &
Gale (St. Louis)
147
6 Lewis, Rice & Fingersh 131
7
Polsinelli Shughart
(St. Louis)
81
8 Stinson Morrison Hecker 43
9 SNR Denton 39
10 Lathrop & Gage 23
11 Hinshaw & Culbertson 16
12
13
14
Greensfelder, Hemker &
Gale (Belleville, Ill.)
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart
Thompson Coburn
(Belleville, Ill.)
16
13
11
15 Littler Mendelson 11
16 Hinshaw & Culbertson 6
17 Fulbright & Jaworski 5
18
Polsinelli Shughart
(Edwardsville, Ill.)
72
4
19,300
NLJ 250 lawyers
work outside the
United States.
Overall, NLJ 250
firms added
98
regional offices
in the last year.
The average
NLJ 250 office has
44
lawyers
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Bowman and Brooke
• Briggs and Morgan
• Dorsey & Whitney
• Faegre & Benson
• Fredrikson & Byron
• Leonard, Street and Deinard
• Lindquist & Vennum
• Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
20
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Day Pitney
• Gibbons
• Lowenstein Sandler
• McCarter & English
21
• McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter
19 Sherman & Howard 1
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Armstrong Teasdale
• Bryan Cave
• Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale
• Husch Blackwell
• Lewis, Rice & Fingersh
• Thompson Coburn
Washington, D.C.’s
193
branch offices are the
most of any market.

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 19
How do you make a wage and hour
class action lawsuit disappear
It isn’t magic. It’s hard work, based on vast experience. That’s how we’ve made over 300 class action lawsuits go away,
either through settlement or in the courtroom. With over 825 employment and labor attorneys in 52 cities, we have an
encyclopedic knowledge of the employment and labor laws of all 50 states, and the often vast differences from state-to-state.
So if you’re faced with a bet-the-company lawsuit, or if you’d like to know how to prevent one, talk to us.
www.littler.com • Littler Mendelson, P.C.
ESC_NtlLawJournal_10.125x13.5_4c_Oct2011.indd 1
9/23/11 9:56 AM

20 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
the NLj 250 market report
KANSAS CITY,
MO.
DENVER
ORANGE
COUNTY, CALIF.
PHOENIX
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 15
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 16
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 17
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 18
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 16
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 38
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 41
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 35
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
1,249
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
1,218
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
1,204
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
1,154
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
1,285
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
1,200
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
1,239
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
1,103
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) -2.8%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) 1.5%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) -2.8%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) 4.6%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
1.0%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
1.0%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
1.0%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
0.9%
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
68
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
32
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
29
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
33
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Office
Total
Lawyers
Office
Total
Lawyers
Office
Total
Lawyers
Office
Total
Lawyers
1 Shook, Hardy & Bacon 303
2
Polsinelli Shughart
(Kansas City, Mo.)
199
3 Stinson Morrison Hecker 147
4 Husch Blackwell 139
5
Lathrop & Gage (Kansas
City, Mo.)
138
6 Bryan Cave 73
7 SNR Denton 47
8
9
Lathrop & Gage (Overland
Park, Kan.)
Polsinelli Shughart
(Overland Park, Kan.)
38
38
10 Kutak Rock 31
11 Armstrong Teasdale 30
1 Sherman & Howard 132
2 Holland & Hart 130
3
Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck
107
4 Faegre & Benson 72
5 Kutak Rock 65
6 Hogan Lovells 60
7 Greenberg Traurig 45
8 Patton Boggs 39
9 Baker & Hostetler 38
10 Cooley 35
11 Dorsey & Whitney 33
12 Ballard Spahr 32
13 Lathrop & Gage 31
1
Knobbe, Martens, Olson
& Bear
161
2 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 70
3 Latham & Watkins 69
4 Snell & Wilmer 64
5 O’Melveny & Myers 55
6
7
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
& Smith
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter
& Hampton
55
54
8 Jones Day 53
9
Allen Matkins Leck
Gamble Mallory & Natsis
46
10 Irell & Manella 41
11 McDermott Will & Emery 38
1 Snell & Wilmer 192
2 Fennemore Craig 130
3 Lewis and Roca 96
4 Quarles & Brady 92
5 Perkins Coie 69
6 Greenberg Traurig 63
7 Polsinelli Shughart 60
8 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey 54
9 Bryan Cave 43
10 Kutak Rock 41
11 Steptoe & Johnson LLP 39
12 Bowman and Brooke 32
13
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
& Smith
31
12 Lewis, Rice & Fingersh 29
14 Perkins Coie 31
12 Paul Hastings 34
14 Ballard Spahr 27
13
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart
14 Littler Mendelson 9
18
15 Polsinelli Shughart 30
16 Snell & Wilmer 30
17 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 29
13 Greenberg Traurig 34
14 Bryan Cave 33
15 Fisher & Phillips 28
15 Stinson Morrison Hecker 26
16 Sherman & Howard 20
17 Littler Mendelson 19
15 Fisher & Phillips 5
16
Bond, Schoeneck &
King
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Lathrop & Gage
• Polsinelli Shughart
• Shook, Hardy & Bacon
• Stinson Morrison Hecker
5
18
Kilpatrick Townsend &
Stockton
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
• Holland & Hart
• Sherman & Howard
28
19 Husch Blackwell 27
20 Gordon & Rees 22
16 Dorsey & Whitney 28
17 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips 27
18 Troutman Sanders 26
19 Crowell & Moring 26
20 Sedgwick 21
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear
18 DLA Piper 17
19 Clark Hill 13
20
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Fennemore Craig
• Lewis and Roca
• Snell & Wilmer
13

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 21
the NLj 250 market report
SAN DIEGO
CHARLOTTE, N.C.
SEATTLE
DETROIT
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 19
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 20
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 21
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 22
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 37
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 25
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 21
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 25
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
1,101
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
1,062
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
1,055
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
1,019
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
1,078
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
1,062
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
1,102
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
1,148
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) 2.1%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) -2.5%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) -4.3%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) -11.2%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
0.9%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
0.8%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
0.8%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
0.8%
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
30
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
42
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
50
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
41
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Office
Total
Lawyers
Office
Total
Lawyers
Office
Total
Lawyers
Office
Total
Lawyers
1 Gordon & Rees 104
2 DLA Piper 101
3 Latham & Watkins 91
4 Cooley 89
5 Morrison & Foerster 65
6
7
8
Knobbe, Martens, Olson
& Bear
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
& Smith
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter
& Hampton (Del Mar
Heights, Calif.)
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
No offices qualify
52
45
43
9 Foley & Lardner 39
10 Best Best & Krieger 33
11 Jones Day 32
12
13
14
Allen Matkins Leck
Gamble Mallory & Natsis
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris,
Glovsky and Popeo
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich
& Rosati
31
31
30
15 Fish & Richardson 29
16 Littler Mendelson 28
17
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter
& Hampton (San Diego)
28
18 Paul Hastings 27
19
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman
27
20 Duane Morris 25
1 Moore & Van Allen 212
2 McGuireWoods 171
3
Parker Poe Adams &
Bernstein
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Moore & Van Allen
• Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein
115
4 Alston & Bird 93
5 K&L Gates 93
6
7
8
Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice
Cadwalader, Wickersham
& Taft
Shumaker, Loop &
Kendrick
59
35
32
9 Mayer Brown 29
10 King & Spalding 26
11
Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough
24
12 Winston & Strawn 24
13 Katten Muchin Rosenman 23
14 Hunton & Williams 22
15 Nexsen Pruet 17
16 Dechert 12
17
Bradley Arant Boult
Cummings
11
18 Cozen O’Connor 10
19 Littler Mendelson 10
20 Winstead 10
1 Perkins Coie (Seattle) 245
2
Davis Wright Tremaine
(Seattle)
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Perkins Coie
• Davis Wright Tremaine
• Lane Powell
172
3 K&L Gates 151
4 Lane Powell 99
5 Stoel Rives 84
6 Dorsey & Whitney 52
7
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati
36
8 Cozen O’Connor 28
9 DLA Piper 26
10 Perkins Coie (Bellevue, Wash.) 23
11 Fenwick & West 21
12
Davis Wright Tremaine
(Bellevue, Wash.)
18
13 Jackson Lewis 16
14 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 16
15 Gordon & Rees 14
16 Cooley 13
17 Littler Mendelson 12
18 Bracewell & Giuliani 10
19
20
Kilpatrick Townsend &
Stockton
Knobbe, Martens, Olson &
Bear
9
9
1
Honigman Miller Schwartz and
Cohn (Detroit)
139
2
Miller, Canfield, Paddock and
Stone (Detroit)
106
3
Plunkett Cooney (Bloomfield
Hills, Mich.)
78
4 Clark Hill (Detroit) 78
5 Dickinson Wright (Detroit) 70
6
Dykema Gossett (Bloomfield
Hills, Mich.)
66
7 Dickinson Wright (Troy, Mich.) 63
8
Miller, Canfield, Paddock and
Stone (Troy, Mich.)
62
9 Dykema Gossett (Detroit) 62
10 Clark Hill (Birmingham, Mich.) 41
11
Honigman Miller Schwartz and
Cohn (Bloomfield Hills, Mich.)
40
12 Foley & Lardner 35
13
Hall, Render, Killian, Heath &
Lyman
32
14 Plunkett Cooney (Detroit) 29
15
Warner Norcross & Judd
(Southfield, Mich.)
28
16 Pepper Hamilton 20
17 Bowman and Brooke 16
18
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart
12
19 Jackson Lewis 9
20
Warner Norcross & Judd
(Sterling Heights, Mich.)
7
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone
• Dickinson Wright
• Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn
• Clark Hill

22 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
the NLj 250 market report
U.S. markets with
the most
NLJ 250 lawyers
Rank
Market
Number of
lawyers
1 New York 21,364
2 Washington 13,423
3 Chicago 7,214
4 San Francisco 5,921
5 Los Angeles 5,876
INDIANAPOLIS*
PITTSBURGH
CLEVELAND
6 Boston 3,760
7 Philadelphia 3,406
8 Atlanta 2,987
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 23
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 24
NLJ 250 market rank by headcount 25
9 Dallas 2,799
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 12
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 19
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 15
10 Houston 2,720
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
1,002
785
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
991
994
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2012)
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250
firms (2011)
966
992
11 Miami 2,089
12 Minneapolis 1,626
13 Northern New Jersey 1,607
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) 27.6%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) -0.3%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12) -2.6%
14 St. Louis 1,376
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
0.8%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
0.8%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in
this market
0.8%
15 Kansas City, Mo. 1,249
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
84
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
52
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in
this market
64
16 Denver 1,218
17 Orange County, Calif. 1,204
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Office
Total
Lawyers
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Office
Total
Lawyers
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Office
Total
Lawyers
18 Phoenix 1,154
19 San Diego 1,101
20 Charlotte, N.C. 1,062
21 Seattle 1,055
1 Barnes & Thornburg 208
1 K&L Gates 188
1 Jones Day 211
22 Detroit 1,019
2 Ice Miller 190
3 Baker & Daniels 187
4
5
6
Bingham Greenebaum
Doll
Hall, Render, Killian,
Heath & Lyman
Taft, Stettinius &
Hollister
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
• Barnes & Thornburg
• Baker & Daniels
• Bingham Greenebaum Doll
• Ice Miller
122
102
88
7 Frost Brown Todd 65
8
Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak &
Stewart
9 Littler Mendelson 6
10 Plunkett Cooney 4
11 Jackson Lewis 3
12 Jackson Kelly 1
26
2 Reed Smith 184
3 Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney 170
4
Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott (Pittsburgh)
141
5 Jones Day 53
6
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner,
Coleman & Goggin
32
7 Pepper Hamilton 32
8 McGuireWoods 31
9 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 24
10
Schnader Harrison Segal &
Lewis
24
11 Fox Rothschild 22
12 Duane Morris 17
13 Dinsmore & Shohl 16
14 Littler Mendelson 16
15 Jackson Lewis 13
16
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart
9
17 Jackson Kelly 8
18 Fulbright & Jaworski 6
19
Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott (Canonsburg, Pa.)
5
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
2 Baker & Hostetler 177
3
Squire, Sanders &
Dempsey
132
4 Thompson Hine 120
5 Ulmer & Berne 103
6
Taft, Stettinius &
Hollister
This market contains the largest U.S.
office for the following firms
45
7 Roetzel & Andress 33
8
9
Vorys, Sater, Seymour
and Pease
Porter Wright Morris &
Arthur
32
28
10 Littler Mendelson 26
11 McGlinchey Stafford 15
12
Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart
15
13 Fisher & Phillips 14
14 Jackson Lewis 10
15
Marshall, Dennehey,
Warner, Coleman &
Goggin
5
23 Indianapolis 1,002
24 Pittsburgh 991
25 Cleveland 966
26 Milwaukee 784
27 Birmingham, Ala. 778
28 Richmond, Va. 767
29 Columbus, Ohio 765
30 Nashville, Tenn. 737
31 Austin, Texas 702
32 Tampa, Fla. 687
33 Cincinnati 633
34 Orlando, Fla. 625
35 Baltimore 609
36 New Orleans 483
37 Louisville 442
38 Portland, Ore. 429
39 Raleigh, N.C. 419
40 Hartford, Conn. 408
41 Jackson, Miss. 369
42 Buffalo, N.Y. 356
43 Las Vegas 342
44 Charleston, S.C. 337
• Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman
• Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
• Baker & Hostetler
45 Wilmington, Del. 328
*Market’s 2012 headcount totals include two
firms that debuted on this year’s NLJ 250
• Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott
• K&L Gates
• Reed Smith
• Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
• Thompson Hine
• Ulmer & Berne
46 Princeton, N.J. 304
47 Memphis, Tenn. 273
48 Salt Lake City 257
Photo credits: Istockphoto/Btrenkel, diego m. radzinschi, istockphoto./Stuartb, istockphoto/samvaltenbergs, istockphoto/jcamilobernal, istockphoto/jorgeantonio, istockphoto/AK2, istockphoto/
lauradyoung, istockphoto/BrandonSeidel, istockphoto/Zview, istockphoto/FotoMak, istockphoto/Tashka, istockphoto/drolet, istockphoto/riggstopher, istockphoto/Davel5957, istockphoto/
photoquest7, istockphoto/tonda, istockphoto/anzeletti, istockphoto/JodiJacobson, istockphoto/Michael-Ledray, istockphoto/EdStock, istockphoto/Jello5700, istockphoto/drnadig, istockphoto/
Davel5957, istockphoto/hatman12, istockphoto/Nikada, istockphoto/ pidjoe, istockphoto/c_yung, istockphoto/holgs, istockphoto/mozcann, istockphoto/FerhatMatt, istockphoto/miralex
49 Jacksonville, Fla. 256
50 Grand Rapids, Mich. 252

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 23
the NLj 250 market report
Top International Markets Overseas locales with more than 400 NLJ 250 lawyers.
LONDON PARIS HONG KONG
FRANKFURT,
GERMANY
NLJ 250 international market rank by headcount: 1
NLJ 250 international market rank by headcount: 2
NLJ 250 international market rank by headcount: 3
NLJ 250 international market rank by headcount: 4
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 79
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 36
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 48
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 30
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250 firms (2012): 5,110
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250 firms (2012): 1,570
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250 firms (2012): 1,490
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250 firms (2012): 768
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250 firms (2011): 4,689
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250 firms (2011): 1,532
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250 firms (2011): 1,333
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250 firms (2011): 801
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12): 9.0%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12): 2.5%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12): 11.8%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12): -4.1%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in this
market:
4.0%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in this
market:
1.2%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in this
market:
1.2%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in this
market:
0.6%
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in this market: 65
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in this market: 44
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in this market: 31
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in this market: 26
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Office
Total
Lawyers
Office
Total
Lawyers
Office
Total Lawyers
Office
Total
Lawyers
1 Hogan Lovells 526
1 Baker & McKenzie 128
1 Baker & McKenzie 170
1 White & Case 94
2 DLA Piper 353
2 Hogan Lovells 117
2 Mayer Brown 170
2 Baker & McKenzie 87
3 Baker & McKenzie 285
3 White & Case 112
3 DLA Piper 99
3 Hogan Lovells 58
4 SNR Denton 272
5 White & Case 270
6 Mayer Brown 255
7 Reed Smith 243
8 Latham & Watkins 185
9
Squire, Sanders &
Dempsey
179
10 Jones Day 158
11 K&L Gates 133
12
Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom
109
13 Sidley Austin 105
14 Dewey & LeBoeuf 100
15 Kirkland & Ellis 100
16
Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton
91
17 Weil, Gotshal & Manges 88
18 Shearman & Sterling 87
19 Dechert 78
20 Debevoise & Plimpton 77
4
5
Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe
Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton
108
105
6 Jones Day 84
7 Latham & Watkins 72
8 Mayer Brown 70
9 Willkie Farr & Gallagher 66
10 Winston & Strawn 66
11 Shearman & Sterling 58
12 DLA Piper 57
13 Weil, Gotshal & Manges 56
14 Dechert 42
15 Reed Smith 39
16 Paul Hastings 38
17 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 28
18 Nixon Peabody 28
19
20
Squire, Sanders &
Dempsey
Kramer Levin Naftalis &
Frankel
28
27
4 Reed Smith 98
5 Sidley Austin 69
6 Hogan Lovells 67
7 Paul Hastings 57
8 Davis Polk & Wardwell 52
9
10
Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom
Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe
52
47
11 Jones Day 44
12 Latham & Watkins 43
13
Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton
41
14 Shearman & Sterling 37
15
Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett
37
16 K&L Gates 32
17 Morrison & Foerster 28
18 O’Melveny & Myers 28
19 White & Case 20
20 Kirkland & Ellis 18
4 Mayer Brown 49
5
Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton
41
6 Latham & Watkins 40
7 DLA Piper 38
8 Jones Day 37
9 Shearman & Sterling 28
10 Weil, Gotshal & Manges 24
11
Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr
24
12 Dewey & LeBoeuf 22
13 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 22
14 Willkie Farr & Gallagher 21
15 Sullivan & Cromwell 20
16 Kaye Scholer 18
17
Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom
18
18 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 16
19 K&L Gates 13
20
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt
& Mosle
12
85% 126,293
lawyers
of NLJ 250 lawyers
work in offices located
in the United States.
lawyers worked at NLJ 250 firms,
according to the 2012 survey.
Headcount at NLJ 250 firms increased by
2,132
in
2012 — up
percent over
last year.
1.7

24 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
the NLj 250 market report
TOKYO BRUSSELS MOSCOW BEIJING
NLJ 250 international market rank by headcount: 5
NLJ 250 international market rank by headcount: 6
NLJ 250 international market rank by headcount: 7
NLJ 250 international market rank by headcount: 8
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 31
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 37
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 21
Number of NLJ 250 offices in this market 44
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250 firms (2012): 658
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250 firms (2012): 643
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250 firms (2012): 561
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250 firms (2012): 415
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250 firms (2011): 683
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250 firms (2011): 644
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250 firms (2011): 531
Number of lawyers working at NLJ 250 firms (2011): 376
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12): -3.7%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12): -0.2%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12): 5.6%
Percent change in number of lawyers (2011-12): 10.4%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in this
market:
0.5%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in this
market:
0.5%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in this
market:
0.4%
Percentage of all NLJ 250 lawyers working in this
market:
0.3%
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in this market: 21
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in this market: 17
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in this market: 27
Average headcount of NLJ 250 offices in this market: 9
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Largest NLJ 250 Offices
in Market
Office
Total
Lawyers
Office
Total
Lawyers
Office
Total
Lawyers
Office
Total
Lawyers
1 Baker & McKenzie 139
2 Morrison & Foerster 117
3 White & Case 81
4 Jones Day 58
5 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 26
6 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey 26
7
Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom
21
8 O’Melveny & Myers 20
9 DLA Piper 19
10 Hogan Lovells 18
11 Latham & Watkins 13
12 K&L Gates 12
13 Paul Hastings 12
14 Shearman & Sterling 11
15 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 11
16 Sidley Austin 10
17 Davis Polk & Wardwell 9
18 Ropes & Gray 9
19 Sullivan & Cromwell 9
20
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley &
McCloy
6
1
Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton
105
2 DLA Piper 75
3 Baker & McKenzie 67
4 White & Case 43
5 Covington & Burling 25
6 Jones Day 24
7 Crowell & Moring 23
8 Hogan Lovells 23
9 Sidley Austin 20
10 Shearman & Sterling 19
11 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey 18
12 Mayer Brown 16
13 Latham & Watkins 15
14 McGuireWoods 15
15 Steptoe & Johnson LLP 15
16 Hunton & Williams 13
17
Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom
13
18 Willkie Farr & Gallagher 13
19 Arnold & Porter 12
20
Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr
12
1 Baker & McKenzie 98
2 White & Case 67
3 DLA Piper 52
4 Hogan Lovells 45
5 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 38
6
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
& Feld
31
7 Dewey & LeBoeuf 29
8 Debevoise & Plimpton 25
9 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey 23
10 Baker Botts 20
11 Dechert 19
12 SNR Denton 19
13 Latham & Watkins 18
14 Chadbourne & Parke 17
15 King & Spalding 14
16
Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom
14
17 Jones Day 12
18 K&L Gates 9
19 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 8
20 Winston & Strawn 2
1 Baker & McKenzie 48
2 Hogan Lovells 24
3 O’Melveny & Myers 24
4 Mayer Brown 23
5 Jones Day 21
6 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 20
7 DLA Piper 17
8 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 16
9 White & Case 16
10 Vinson & Elkins 12
11
Cadwalader, Wickersham &
Taft
11
12 Shearman & Sterling 11
13 Davis Polk & Wardwell 10
14 Reed Smith 10
15 K&L Gates 9
16 Paul Hastings 9
17 Sidley Austin 9
18 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 8
19 Morrison & Foerster 8
20
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
& Flom
8
International markets with the most
NLJ 250 lawyers
Rank City Country
No. of
Lawyers
1 London United Kingdom 5,110
2 Paris France 1,570
3 Hong Kong China 1,490
4 Frankfurt Germany 768
5 Tokyo Japan 658
6 Brussels Belgium 643
7 Moscow Russia 561
8 Beijing China 415
9 Warsaw Poland 387
10 Munich Germany 379
Rank City Country
No. of
Lawyers
11 Amsterdam The Netherlands 354
12 Sydney Australia 347
13 Shanghai China 343
14 Madrid Spain 328
15 Rome Italy 275
16 Leeds United Kingdom 256
17 Hamburg Germany 231
18 Mexico City Mexico 219
19 Dubai United Arab Emirates 211
20 Berlin Germany 198
Rank City Country
No. of
Lawyers
21 Melbourne Australia 196
22 Düsseldorf Germany 192
23 São Paulo Brazil 169
24 Prague Czech Republic 162
25 Toronto Canada 132
26 Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates 129
27 Budapest Hungary 126
28 Bangkok Thailand 121
29 Stockholm Sweden 118
30 Taipei City Taiwan 114

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 25
Presents
The 2012
Complex Litigation
Breakfast Series: Washington, DC
Financial Restatement
Considerations in Litigation
A decade after Enron and the resulting Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, companies
are still grappling with financial statement restatements and related litigation
involving the SEC/DOJ/PCAOB and class actions brought by investors. This
panel discussion will focus on the current environment for financial statement
restatements, including areas that are generating the most concern.
Speakers:
Washington DC • New York • San Francisco • Chicago • Houston • Miami
Next Up: June 19th NY Harvard Club Topic: False Advertisement Claims
Robert M. Cooper
Partner
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
Michelle J. Avery, CPA, CFF
Managing Director
Executive Vice President
Veris Consulting, Inc.
Stephen Cohen
Associate Director
U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission
Division of Enforcement
Moderator & Speaker:
Fabio Bertoni
VP & Deputy General Counsel
ALM Media LLC
Jarett Decker
Deputy Director
Chief Trial Counsel
Division of Enforcement
and Investigations
PCAOB
May 24th, 2012 • 8:30am - 10:30am
University Club of Washington DC
1135 16th St., NW Washington, DC 20005
CLE accreditation pending for NY & VA May 24th DC Event.
Sponsored in part by:
For more information and to register
www.bit.ly/DC_LitigationBreakfast

26 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
The NLJ
Regional
Report
Branch Offices
A comprehensive list of the offices at NLJ 250 firms.
A-B
Adams and Reese
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New Orleans 78
Houston 34
Jackson, Miss. 31
Nashville, Tenn. 31
Baton Rouge, La. 19
Birmingham, Ala. 16
Mobile, Ala. 13
St. Petersburg, Fla. 12
Tampa, Fla. 12
Memphis, Tenn. 11
Sarasota, Fla. 9
Washington 1
Akerman Senterfitt
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Miami 137
Orlando, Fla. 62
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 47
Tampa, Fla. 40
West Palm Beach, Fla. 38
New York 36
Jacksonville, Fla. 28
Tallahassee, Fla. 20
Tysons Corner, Va. 13
Denver 11
Dallas 10
Washington 8
Las Vegas 7
Los Angeles 6
Boca Raton, Fla. 3
Naples, Fla. 3
Madison, Wis. 1
Palm Beach, Fla. 1
Salt Lake City 1
Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Washington 237
New York 191
Dallas 94
Los Angeles 80
Austin, Texas 9
Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates
Geneva 8
Beijing 4
Allen Matkins Leck
Gamble Mallory & Natsis
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Los Angeles (downtown) 56
Irvine, Calif. 46
San Francisco 39
San Diego 31
Los Angeles (Century City) 27
Alston & Bird
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Atlanta 370
New York 112
Charlotte, N.C. 93
Washington 92
Los Angeles 73
Dallas 25
Menlo Park, Calif. 21
Raleigh, N.C. 14
Westlake Village, Calif. 5
Brussels 1
Andrews Kurth
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Houston 176
Dallas 74
Austin, Texas 35
Washington 29
New York 24
The Woodlands, Texas 9
Durham, N.C. 2
Beijing 1
Archer & Greiner
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Haddonfield, N.J. 114
Philadelphia 31
Hackensack, N.J. 26
Princeton, N.J. 15
Flemington, N.J. 6
Wilmington, Del. 5
8
Armstrong Teasdale
Office
No. of
Lawyers
St. Louis 189
Kansas City, Mo. 30
Las Vegas 8
Jefferson City, Mo. 5
Reno, Nev. 5
Shanghai, China 1
Arnold & Porter
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Washington 429
New York 101
Los Angeles 51
London 33
San Francisco 26
Denver 15
Brussels 12
McLean, Va. 11
Baker & Daniels
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Indianapolis 187
Fort Wayne, Ind. 34
Chicago 28
South Bend, Ind. 19
Washington 5
Beijing 2
Baker & McKenzie
Office
No. of
Lawyers
London 285
Chicago 211
Sydney, Australia 197
Hong Kong 170
Amsterdam, Netherlands 158
Tokyo 139
Paris 128
São Paulo, Brazil 117
Madrid, Spain 114
Moscow 98
Washington 98
New York 92
Frankfurt, Germany 87
Jakarta, Indonesia 76
Singapore 74
Mexico City 71
Zurich, Switzerland 60
Milan, Italy 58
Barcelona, Spain 55
Buenos Aires, Argentina 54
Dallas 52
Shanghai, China 51
Beijing 48
Palo Alto, Calif. 48
San Francisco 47
Manila, Philippines 45
Warsaw, Poland 45
Houston 44
Stockholm, Sweden 43
Kiev, Ukraine 42
Cairo, Egypt 39
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 39
Bogotá, Colombia 32
Santiago, Chile 32
Munich, Germany 31
Ciudad Juarez, Mexico 30
Monterrey, Mexico 29
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 29
Prague, Czech Republic 26
Rome 25
Budapest, Hungary 24
Miami 23
Düsseldorf, Germany 22
Geneva 19
Vienna, Austria 18
Berlin 17
Tijuana, Mexico 16
Guadalajara, Mexico 15
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 14
Luxembourg 14
San Diego 14
Almaty, Kazakhstan 13
Manama, Bahrain 13
Hanoi, Vietnam 13
St. Petersburg, Russia 12
Baku, Azerbaijan 10
Porto Alegre, Brazil 10
Antwerp, Belgium 9
Brasília, Brazil 9
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 7
Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates
Valencia, Colombia 5
Baker Botts
Office
6
No. of
Lawyers
Moscow 20
Palo Alto, Calif. 16
Dubai, United Arab
Emirates
12
Hong Kong 8
Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates
6
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 5
Beijing 3
Baker & Hostetler
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Cleveland 177
New York 156
Washington 98
Houston 70
Columbus, Ohio 64
Orlando, Fla. 56
Denver 38
Los Angeles 26
Cincinnati 21
Costa Mesa, Calif. 15
Chicago 12
Baker, Donelson,
Bearman, Caldwell &
Berkowitz
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Memphis, Tenn. 92
Nashville, Tenn. 79
New Orleans 78
Jackson, Miss. 76
Birmingham, Ala. 67
Atlanta 57
Chattanooga, Tenn. 35
Washington 30
Knoxville, Tenn. 18
Johnson City, Tenn. 14
Balch & Bingham
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Birmingham, Ala. 149
Atlanta 32
Montgomery, Ala. 18
Gulfport, Miss. 17
Jackson, Miss. 16
Ballard Spahr
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Houston 46
Moscow 31
London 29
Arent Fox
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Brussels 67
Melbourne, Australia 65
Caracas, Venezuela 64
Houston 222
Dallas 141
Washington 128
Philadelphia 209
Washington 40
Salt Lake City 38
San Antonio 25
Washington 197
Taipei, Taiwan 63
New York 65
Baltimore 32
Philadelphia 16
New York 65
Toronto 63
Austin, Texas 54
Denver 32
San Francisco 12
Los Angeles 53
Bangkok, Thailand 60
London 26
Phoenix 27

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 27
The NLJ
Regional Report
Branch Offices
Atlanta 22
Cherry Hill, N.J. 21
Las Vegas 14
Los Angeles 13
Bethesda, Md. 10
Wilmington, Del. 10
San Diego 5
Barnes & Thornburg
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Indianapolis 208
Chicago 90
South Bend, Ind. 43
Minneapolis 27
Grand Rapids, Mich. 21
Atlanta 18
Fort Wayne, Ind. 18
Washington 17
Los Angeles 10
Columbus, Ohio 9
Elkhart, Ind. 8
Wilmington, Del. 1
Bass, Berry & Sims
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Nashville, Tenn. 161
Memphis, Tenn. 32
Knoxville, Tenn. 3
Best Best & Krieger
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Riverside, Calif. 57
San Diego 33
Sacramento, Calif. 29
Irvine, Calif. 17
Los Angeles 17
Ontario, Calif. 16
Indian Wells, Calif. 9
Walnut Creek, Calif. 6
Washington 6
Bingham Greenebaum
Doll
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Indianapolis 122
Louisville, Ky. 72
Lexington, Ky. 34
Cincinnati 8
Jasper, Ind. 5
Evansville, Ind. 2
Vincennes, Ind. 1
Bingham McCutchen
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Boston 213
New York 166
Washington 156
San Francisco 96
Los Angeles 56
London 39
Hartford, Conn. 34
Palo Alto, Calif. 31
Santa Monica 26
Costa Mesa, Calif. 16
Hong Kong 10
Frankfurt, Germany 5
Portland, Maine 5
Tokyo 2
Blank Rome
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Philadelphia 222
New York 115
Washington 70
Los Angeles 17
Princeton, N.J. 17
Wilmington, Del. 12
Hong Kong 8
Houston 6
Boca Raton, Fla. 3
Cincinnati 2
Shanghai, China 2
Boies, Schiller & Flexner
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 62
Armonk, N.Y. 35
Washington 34
Miami 24
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 19
Oakland, Calif. 18
Albany, N.Y. 16
Hollywood, Fla. 7
Orlando, Fla. 6
Santa Monica, Calif. 5
Hanover, N.H. 4
Las Vegas 4
Bond, Schoeneck & King
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Syracuse, N.Y. 107
Albany, N.Y. 24
Rochester, N.Y. 15
Naples, Fla. 14
Buffalo, N.Y. 10
Garden City, N.Y. 10
New York 9
Overland Park, Kan. 5
Ithaca, N.Y. 2
Oswego, N.Y. 2
Utica, N.Y. 2
Bowman and Brooke
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Minneapolis 45
Phoenix 32
Los Angeles 31
Detroit 16
Austin, Texas 15
Dallas 13
San Jose, Calif. 12
Richmond, Va. 9
Columbia, S.C. 8
Bracewell & Giuliani
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Houston 212
New York 59
Washington 43
Dallas 41
Austin, Texas 25
San Antonio 16
Hartford, Conn. 13
Seattle 10
Dubai, United Arab
Emirates
London 2
Bradley Arant Boult
Cummings
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Birmingham, Ala. 185
Nashville, Tenn. 92
Jackson, Miss. 25
Huntsville, Ala. 22
Washington 14
Charlotte, N.C. 11
Montgomery, Ala. 10
Briggs and Morgan
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Minneapolis 159
St. Paul, Minn. 17
Brown Rudnick
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Boston 79
New York 46
London 25
Hartford, Conn. 16
Washington 13
Providence, R.I. 6
Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Denver 107
Las Vegas 31
Santa Barbara, Calif. 21
Los Angeles 16
Albuquerque, N.M. 11
Washington 11
Phoenix 8
San Diego 3
Reno, Nev. 2
San Clemente, Calif. 1
Sacramento, Calif. 1
Bryan Cave
Office
No. of
Lawyers
St. Louis 228
3
New York 129
Atlanta 98
Kansas City, Mo. 73
Washington 65
Chicago 58
Santa Monica, Calif. 52
Phoenix 43
Irvine, Calif. 33
London 29
Dallas 20
San Francisco 19
Hamburg, Germany 12
Paris 9
Charlotte, N.C. 6
Hong Kong 4
Shanghai, China 4
Singapore 3
Buchanan Ingersoll &
Rooney
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Pittsburgh 170
Philadelphia 67
Alexandria, Va. 46
Washington 35
Harrisburg, Pa. 32
Princeton, N.J. 15
New York 14
San Diego 8
Miami 6
Newark, N.J. 6
Wilmington, Del. 5
Aventura, Fla. 4
Tampa, Fla. 3
Buffalo, N.Y. 2
Temecula, Calif. 2
Burr & Forman
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Birmingham, Ala. 128
Atlanta 36
Orlando, Fla. 27
Mobile, Ala. 21
Nashville, Tenn. 12
Jackson, Miss. 7
Montgomery, Ala. 2
Butler, Snow, O’Mara,
Stevens & Cannada
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Ridgeland, Miss. 101
Memphis, Tenn. 47
Gulfport, Miss. 15
Baton Rouge, La. 3
Oxford, Miss. 3
Birmingham, Ala. 2
Montgomery, Ala. 2
Franklin, Tenn. 2
New Orleans 2
Bethlehem, Pa. 1
C-D
Cadwalader, Wickersham
& Taft
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 298
Washington 93
Charlotte, N.C. 35
London 21
Beijing 11
Brussels 3
Houston 3
Hong Kong 2
Cahill Gordon & Reindel
No. of
Office
Lawyers
New York 273
London 5
Washington 3
Carlton Fields
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Tampa, Fla. 99
Miami 93
Atlanta 25
West Palm Beach, Fla. 23
Orlando, Fla. 20
Tallahassee, Fla. 11
St. Petersburg, Fla. 8
Chadbourne & Parke
No. of
Office
Lawyers
New York 202
Washington 53
London 40
Warsaw, Poland 31
Kiev, Ukraine 18
Moscow 17
Almaty, Kazakhstan 13
Dubai, United Arab
Emirates
10
Los Angeles 10
Mexico City 6
São Paulo, Brazil 3
Istanbul, Turkey 2
Beijing 1
Chapman and Cutler
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Chicago 164
San Francisco 16
Salt Lake City 13
New York 10
Clark Hill
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Detroit 78
Birmingham, Mich. 41

28 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
The NLJ
Regional Report
Branch Offices
Chicago 25
New York 75
London 33
Austin, Texas 6
Columbus, Ohio 46
Grand Rapids, Mich. 24
Seattle 28
Washington 19
Beijing 6
Dayton, Ohio 44
Phoenix 13
Lansing, Mich. 10
Washington 7
Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 481
Washington 146
Brussels 105
Paris 105
London 91
Rome 89
Frankfurt, Germany 41
Hong Kong 41
Moscow 38
Cologne, Germany 30
Beijing 8
Buenos Aires, Argentina 6
São Paulo, Brazil 2
Cole, Scott & Kissane
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Miami 66
West Palm Beach, Fla. 34
Tampa, Fla. 32
Jacksonville, Fla. 17
Orlando, Fla. 14
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 12
Bonita Springs, Fla. 3
Key West, Fla. 3
Pensacola, Fla. 3
Cooley
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Palo Alto, Calif. 173
San Diego 89
New York 77
San Francisco 70
Reston, Va. 65
Washington 53
Boston 37
Broomfield, Colo. 35
Seattle 13
Covington & Burling
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Washington 429
New York 107
San Francisco 60
London 52
Brussels 25
Redwood Shores, Calif. 15
San Diego 10
Beijing 7
Cozen O’Connor
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Philadelphia 211
Washington 22
West Conshohocken, Pa. 22
Chicago 20
Houston 19
Dallas 17
San Diego 15
Atlanta 13
Cherry Hill, N.J. 12
Charlotte, N.C. 10
Los Angeles 9
Denver 7
London 6
Miami 6
Wilmington, Del. 6
Harrisburg, Pa. 3
Toronto 3
Cravath, Swaine & Moore
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 451
London 25
Crowell & Moring
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Washington 282
New York 53
Irvine, Calif. 26
Brussels 23
San Francisco 23
Los Angeles 20
London 14
Anchorage, Alaska 3
Cairo, Egypt 1
Cheyenne, Wyo. 1
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost,
Colt & Mosle
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 162
Milan, Italy 22
Mexico City 19
Paris 18
Buenos Aires, Argentina 17
Frankfurt, Germany 12
Washington 12
London 10
Muscat, Oman 10
Istanbul, Turkey 7
Almaty, Kazakhstan 6
Ashgabat, Turkmenistan 6
Dubai, United Arab
Emirates
Houston 4
Davis Polk & Wardwell
No. of
Office
Lawyers
New York 571
Hong Kong 52
Menlo Park, Calif. 52
5
Paris 17
Beijing 10
Tokyo 9
Madrid, Spain 4
São Paulo, Brazil 2
Davis Wright Tremaine
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Seattle 172
Portland, Ore. 69
Washington 49
Los Angeles 46
New York 33
San Francisco 32
Bellevue, Wash. 18
Anchorage, Alaska 14
Shanghai, China 3
Day Pitney
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Parsippany, N.J. 116
Hartford, Conn. 76
New York 35
Boston 34
Stamford, Conn. 30
Greenwich, Conn. 7
New Haven, Conn. 7
West Hartford, Conn. 7
Washington 2
Debevoise & Plimpton
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 465
London 77
Washington 28
Moscow 25
Paris 25
Hong Kong 13
Frankfurt, Germany 11
Shanghai, China 5
Dechert
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Philadelphia 189
New York 170
London 78
Washington 75
Paris 42
Boston 33
Moscow 19
Mountain View, Calif. 18
Munich, Germany 17
San Francisco 17
Princeton, N.J. 14
Charlotte, N.C. 12
Brussels 11
Hartford, Conn. 11
Hong Kong 9
Irvine, Calif. 7
Dublin, Ireland 5
Luxembourg 5
Los Angeles 4
Dewey & LeBoeuf
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 476
London 100
Washington 96
Milan, Italy 71
Warsaw, Poland 43
Los Angeles 39
Moscow 29
Frankfurt, Germany 22
East Palo Alto, Calif. 22
Chicago 19
Rome 18
Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates
17
Boston 14
San Francisco 14
Houston 12
Almaty, Kazakhstan 9
Paris 8
Beijing 7
Albany, N.Y. 6
Hong Kong 5
Johannesburg, South
Africa
4
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 4
Brussels 2
Madrid, Spain 2
Doha, Qatar 1
Dickinson Wright
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Detroit 70
Troy, Mich. 63
Toronto 26
Nashville, Tenn. 24
Ann Arbor, Mich. 19
Grand Rapids, Mich. 17
Lansing, Mich. 17
Washington 17
Las Vegas 3
Phoenix 1
Dickstein Shapiro
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Washington 220
New York 73
Los Angeles 26
Stamford, Conn. 11
Irvine, Calif. 7
Palo Alto, Calif. 6
Dinsmore & Shohl
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Cincinnati 166
Louisville, Ky. 53
Lexington, Ky. 36
Charleston, W.Va. 29
Pittsburgh 16
Morgantown, W.Va. 11
Wheeling, W.Va. 8
Frankfort, Ky. 2
DLA Piper
Office
No. of
Lawyers
London 353
New York 207
Chicago 179
Leeds, England 156
Washington 140
Manchester, England 117
Amsterdam, Netherlands 105
Baltimore 105
San Diego 101
Birmingham, England 99
Hong Kong 99
Melbourne, Australia 95
Sydney, Australia 89
Milan, Italy 81
Los Angeles 80
Sheffield, England 80
Brussels 75
Madrid, Spain 74
Palo Alto, Calif. 71
Liverpool, England 58
Boston 57
Paris 57
Oslo, Norway 54
Moscow 52
San Francisco 52
Rome 50
Warsaw, Poland 50
Istanbul, Turkey 49
Vienna, Austria 49
Edinburgh, Scotland 46
Cologne, Germany 45
Dubai, United Arab
Emirates
43
Brisbane, Australia 41
Atlanta 38
Frankfurt, Germany 38
Budapest, Hungary 34
Perth, Australia 34
Philadelphia 34
Bangkok, Thailand 32
Glasgow, Scotland 31
Kiev, Ukraine 29
St. Petersburg, Russia 29
Austin, Texas 26
Seattle 26
Shanghai, China 24
Bucharest, Romania 23
Sacramento, Calif. 23
Prague, Czech Republic 21
Houston 19
Reston, Va. 19
Tokyo 19

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 29
The NLJ
Regional Report
Branch Offices
Hamburg, Germany 18
Singapore 18
Beijing 17
Phoenix 17
Antwerp, Belgium 16
Canberra, Australia 16
Munich, Germany 15
Dallas 12
Tampa, Fla. 12
Florham Park, N.J. 11
Raleigh, N.C. 10
Tbilisi, Georgia 10
Miami 9
Bratislava, Slovakia 8
Kuwait City 8
Wilmington, Del. 8
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 7
Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates
6
Berlin 6
Minneapolis 4
Doha, Qatar 3
Atlantic City, N.J. 2
Ankara, Turkey 2
Muscat, Oman 2
Manama, Bahrain 1
Dorsey & Whitney
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Minneapolis 237
Seattle 52
New York 49
Denver 33
London 29
Costa Mesa, Calif. 28
Salt Lake City 21
Hong Kong 15
Des Moines, Iowa 14
Palo Alto, Calif. 13
Washington 10
Anchorage, Alaska 9
Shanghai, China 6
Missoula, Mont. 5
Toronto 3
Wilmington, Del. 3
Fargo, N.D. 2
Vancouver, British
Columbia
Sydney, Australia 1
Drinker Biddle & Reath
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Philadelphia 188
Chicago 111
Washington 95
Florham Park, N.J. 72
Princeton, N.J. 33
San Francisco 31
Los Angeles 27
New York 9
Wilmington, Del. 6
Milwaukee 5
2
Duane Morris
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Philadelphia 168
New York 82
San Francisco 53
Chicago 45
Washington 40
Boston 30
Cherry Hill, N.J. 27
San Diego 25
Atlanta 23
Miami 22
Newark, N.J. 17
Pittsburgh 17
Baltimore 16
Houston 12
Los Angeles 10
London 8
Wilmington, Del. 8
Boca Raton, Fla. 6
Las Vegas 5
Hanoi, Vietnam 3
Lake Tahoe, Calif. 2
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 1
Singapore 1
Dykema Gossett
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Chicago 89
Bloomfield Hills, Mich. 66
Detroit 62
Los Angeles 30
Ann Arbor, Mich. 19
Dallas 17
Lansing, Mich. 17
Washington 10
Grand Rapids, Mich. 9
Lisle, Ill. 8
Charlotte, N.C. 4
E-f
Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Pittsburgh 141
Philadelphia 74
Harrisburg, Pa. 34
Boston 28
Washington 24
White Plains, N.Y. 15
Richmond, Va. 8
Canonsburg, Pa. 5
Wilmington, Del. 4
Charleston, W.Va. 1
Edwards Wildman Palmer
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Chicago 96
London 71
Providence, R.I. 69
New York 57
West Palm Beach, Fla. 19
Hartford, Conn. 17
Washington 16
Madison, Wis. 13
Stamford, Conn. 13
Hong Kong 10
Los Angeles 9
Newport Beach, Calif. 7
Tokyo 1
Epstein Becker & Green
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 111
Washington 65
Newark, N.J. 29
Atlanta 18
Los Angeles 18
Chicago 9
Houston 9
San Francisco 9
Stamford, Conn. 4
Miami 3
Faegre & Benson
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Minneapolis 289
Denver 72
Des Moines, Iowa 19
London 19
Boulder, Colo. 15
Shanghai, China 11
Fennemore Craig
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Phoenix 130
Las Vegas 11
Denver 10
Tucson, Ariz. 9
Nogales, Ariz. 3
Fenwick & West
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Mountain View, Calif. 149
San Francisco 75
Seattle 21
Boise, Idaho 2
Finnegan, Henderson,
Farabow, Garrett &
Dunner
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Washington 229
Reston, Va. 45
Atlanta 31
Cambridge, Mass. 29
Palo Alto, Calif. 27
Shanghai, China 2
Taipei, Taiwan 2
Tokyo 2
Fish & Richardson
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Boston 59
Washington 55
Dallas 43
Redwood City, Calif. 40
New York 35
Minneapolis 33
San Diego 29
Wilmington, Del. 20
Atlanta 16
Munich, Germany 9
Houston 8
Austin, Texas 7
Fisher & Phillips
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Atlanta 38
Irvine, Calif. 28
Cleveland 14
Louisville, Ky. 14
Philadelphia 12
Chicago 11
Columbia, S.C. 11
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 11
San Diego 11
Memphis, Tenn. 10
New Orleans 8
Portland, Ore. 7
San Francisco 7
Dallas 6
Las Vegas 6
Portland, Maine 6
Tampa, Fla. 6
Houston 5
Kansas City, Mo. 5
Orlando, Fla. 5
Charlotte, N.C. 4
Denver 4
Los Angeles 4
Phoenix 3
Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper
& Scinto
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 142
Washington 22
Costa Mesa, Calif. 9
Foley & Lardner
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Milwaukee 192
Chicago 135
Washington 119
Boston 60
Madison, Wis. 59
San Diego 39
Tampa, Fla. 37
New York 36
Detroit 35
Orlando, Fla. 32
Jacksonville, Fla. 26
San Francisco 25
Miami 21
Palo Alto, Calif. 12
Tallahassee, Fla. 9
Tokyo 2
Brussels 1
Sacramento, Calif. 1
Foley Hoag
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Boston 178
Washington 27
Waltham, Mass. 3
Paris 2
Ford & Harrison
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Atlanta 46
Memphis, Tenn. 14
Los Angeles 13
Tampa, Fla. 13
Spartanburg, S.C. 11
Chicago 10
Orlando, Fla. 10
Washington 10
Minneapolis 7
New York 7
Miami 6
Birmingham, Ala. 4
Dallas 4
Jacksonville, Fla. 4
Melbourne, Fla. 4
Denver 3
Phoenix 2
Short Hills, N.J. 1
Fox Rothschild
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Philadelphia 93
Princeton, N.J. 66
Roseland, N.J. 44
Exton, Pa. 40
New York 34
Atlantic City, N.J. 29
Blue Bell, Pa. 29
Warrington, Pa. 26
Los Angeles 22
Pittsburgh 22
West Palm Beach, Fla. 16
Wilmington, Del. 16
Las Vegas 13
San Francisco 9
Stamford, Conn. 8
Albany, N.Y. 3
Boston 189
Brussels 4
Los Angeles 52
Washington 5

30 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
The NLJ
Regional Report
Branch Offices
Fragomen, Del Rey,
Bernsen & Loewy
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 66
London 26
Sydney, Australia 26
San José, Costa Rica 23
Chicago 15
Matawan, N.J. 15
Santa Clara, Calif. 14
Washington 14
Phoenix 11
Boston 9
Los Angeles 9
Frankfurt, Germany 8
Coral Gables, Fla. 7
Dallas 7
Philadelphia 7
San Diego 7
Melbourne, Australia 6
San Francisco 6
Troy, Mich. 6
Irvine, Calif. 5
Perth, Australia 4
Canberra, Australia 3
Toronto 3
Brussels 2
Johannesburg, South
Africa
2
Singapore 2
Hong Kong 1
Kochi, India 1
Macquarie Park, Australia 1
Fredrikson & Byron
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Minneapolis 216
Bismarck, N.D. 10
Fargo, N.D. 6
Shanghai, China 3
West Des Moines, Iowa 2
Fried, Frank, Harris,
Shriver & Jacobson
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 338
Washington 83
London 41
Hong Kong 17
Paris 9
Frankfurt, Germany 7
Frost Brown Todd
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Cincinnati 118
Louisville, Ky. 105
Indianapolis 65
Lexington, Ky. 39
Columbus, Ohio 26
Nashville, Tenn. 15
Florence, Ky. 8
Charleston, W.Va. 6
Fulbright & Jaworski
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Houston 227
Dallas 132
New York 104
Austin, Texas 74
Washington 72
Los Angeles 55
San Antonio 48
London 31
Minneapolis 14
Dubai, United Arab
Emirates
12
Hong Kong 9
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 7
Canonsburg, Pa. 6
Denver 5
St. Louis 5
Beijing 4
Munich, Germany 4
g-h
Gardere Wynne Sewell
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Dallas 143
Houston 86
Austin, Texas 11
Gibbons
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Newark, N.J. 133
New York 35
Philadelphia 24
Trenton, N.J. 4
Wilmington, Del. 3
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
No. of
Office
Lawyers
New York 273
Los Angeles 233
Washington 160
Irvine, Calif. 70
San Francisco 59
London 42
Palo Alto, Calif. 41
Dallas 39
Denver 29
Los Angeles 23
Munich, Germany 19
Paris 19
Singapore 12
Brussels 9
Dubai, United Arab
Emirates
Hong Kong 3
6
Godfrey & Kahn
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Milwaukee 109
Madison, Wis. 40
Green Bay, Wis. 13
Appleton, Wis. 7
Waukesha, Wis. 3
Goodwin Procter
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Boston 404
New York 141
Washington 96
Menlo Park, Calif. 45
Los Angeles 24
San Francisco 24
San Diego 12
Hong Kong 7
London 1
Gordon & Rees
Office
No. of
Lawyers
San Francisco 110
San Diego 104
Los Angeles 44
Denver 22
Dallas 17
Florham Park, N.J. 15
Seattle 14
Miami 12
New York 12
Houston 11
Irvine, Calif. 11
Austin, Texas 10
Chicago 7
Phoenix 7
Hartford, Conn. 6
Las Vegas 6
Atlanta 5
Portland, Ore. 5
Sacramento, Calif. 5
East Meadow, N.Y. 2
Goulston & Storrs
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Boston 140
Washington 19
New York 7
GrayRobinson
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Orlando, Fla. 74
Tampa, Fla. 43
Miami 34
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 31
Melbourne, Fla. 20
Jacksonville, Fla. 18
Lakeland, Fla. 17
Tallahassee, Fla. 14
Naples, Fla. 5
Greenberg Traurig
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 221
Miami 157
Chicago 129
Atlanta 97
Washington 91
Los Angeles 89
Boston 69
Morristown, N.J. 65
Phoenix 63
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 60
Amsterdam, Netherlands 51
London 48
Dallas 46
Houston 46
Denver 45
Orlando, Fla. 40
Tysons Corner, Va. 40
Irvine, Calif. 34
Philadelphia 34
Las Vegas 32
West Palm Beach, Fla. 30
East Palo Alto, Calif. 28
Albany, N.Y. 26
Sacramento, Calif. 24
White Plains, N.Y. 21
Boca Raton, Fla. 20
Tallahassee, Fla. 20
Tampa, Fla. 19
Austin, Texas 18
San Francisco 15
Wilmington, Del. 12
Shanghai, China 7
Mexico City 4
Greensfelder, Hemker &
Gale
Office
No. of
Lawyers
St. Louis 147
Belleville, Ill. 16
Chicago 8
Gunster, Yoakley &
Stewart
Office
No. of
Lawyers
West Palm Beach, Fla. 61
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 36
Miami 25
Jacksonville, Fla. 22
Tampa, Fla. 9
Tallahassee, Fla. 6
Stuart, Fla. 4
Palm Beach, Fla. 3
Vero Beach, Fla. 1
Hall, Render, Killian,
Heath & Lyman
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Indianapolis 102
Milwaukee 31
Louisville, Ky. 10
Harris Beach
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Rochester, N.Y. 83
New York 34
Buffalo, N.Y. 24
Albany, N.Y. 15
Syracuse, N.Y. 12
Uniondale, N.Y. 8
Ithaca, N.Y. 6
White Plains, N.Y. 5
Niagara Falls, N.Y. 1
Haynes and Boone
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Dallas 208
Houston 106
New York 46
Richardson, Texas 23
Washington 20
Fort Worth, Texas 18
Austin, Texas 16
San Antonio 16
San Jose, Calif. 14
Irvine, Calif. 13
Mexico City 13
Hinshaw & Culbertson
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Chicago 154
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 29
Los Angeles 29
Miami 29
Rockford, Ill. 29
Minneapolis 27
Boston 18
Belleville, Ill. 16
San Francisco 16
Tampa, Fla. 16
New York 14
Peoria, Ill. 14
Milwaukee 12
Schererville, Ind. 12
Springfield, Ill. 12
Jacksonville, Fla. 9
Joliet, Ill. 7
Portland, Ore. 7
Appleton, Wis. 6
Lisle, Ill. 6
Phoenix 6
St. Louis 6
Hiscock & Barclay
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Syracuse, N.Y. 58
Albany, N.Y. 34
Rochester, N.Y. 30
Buffalo, N.Y. 29
West Chester, Ohio 13
São Paulo, Brazil 1
Key West, Fla. 1
Troy, Mich. 32
New York 10

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 31
The NLJ
Regional Report
Branch Offices
Boston 4
Cheyenne, Wyo. 13
Charlotte, N.C. 22
Washington 32
Washington 233
Hodgson Russ
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Buffalo, N.Y. 151
New York 27
Albany, N.Y. 12
Toronto 3
Johnstown, N.Y. 2
Palm Beach, Fla. 1
Hogan Lovells
Office
No. of
Lawyers
London 526
Washington 433
New York 160
Paris 117
Düsseldorf, Germany 73
Munich, Germany 72
Hong Kong 67
Madrid, Spain 63
Denver 60
Frankfurt, Germany 58
Hamburg, Germany 58
Moscow 45
Amsterdam, Netherlands 39
Milan, Italy 38
Baltimore 36
McLean, Va. 36
Rome 36
Miami 32
Warsaw, Poland 32
Los Angeles 27
Beijing 24
Berlin 23
Brussels 23
Shanghai, China 20
Singapore 20
Dubai, United Arab
Emirates
19
Tokyo 18
San Francisco 15
Alicante, Spain 13
Houston 13
Palo Alto, Calif. 13
Philadelphia 10
Prague, Czech Republic 9
Caracas, Venezuela 8
Colorado Springs, Colo. 8
Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates
5
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 5
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia 3
Holland & Hart
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Denver 130
Salt Lake City 67
Boise, Idaho 37
Boulder, Colo. 27
Las Vegas 24
Reno, Nev. 24
Greenwood Village, Colo. 20
Billings, Mont. 12
Santa Fe, N.M. 9
Washington 8
Colorado Springs, Colo. 7
Aspen, Colo. 6
Jackson Hole, Wyo. 6
Carson City, Nev. 3
Holland & Knight
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Washington 143
Boston 103
Miami 97
Chicago 95
New York 95
Tampa, Fla. 55
Orlando, Fla. 52
Jacksonville, Fla. 46
Los Angeles 39
McLean, Va. 36
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 32
San Francisco 30
Atlanta 28
Tallahassee, Fla. 18
Portland, Ore. 15
West Palm Beach, Fla. 9
Bethesda, Md. 5
Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates
4
Lakeland, Fla. 4
Beijing 3
Honigman Miller
Schwartz and Cohn
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Detroit 139
Bloomfield Hills, Mich. 40
Kalamazoo, Mich. 18
Lansing, Mich. 12
Ann Arbor, Mich. 11
Hughes Hubbard & Reed
No. of
Office
Lawyers
New York 207
Washington 47
Paris 18
Miami 17
Los Angeles 10
Jersey City, N.J. 5
Tokyo 1
Hunton & Williams
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Richmond, Va. 200
Washington 148
Dallas 90
New York 59
Atlanta 44
McLean, Va. 37
Miami 36
Bangkok, Thailand 26
Los Angeles 22
Raleigh, N.C. 15
Brussels 13
London 13
Norfolk, Va. 7
Houston 6
Austin, Texas 5
San Francisco 5
Beijing 3
Husch Blackwell
Office
No. of
Lawyers
St. Louis 187
Kansas City, Mo. 139
Chicago 41
Chattanooga, Tenn. 29
Springfield, Mo. 28
Denver 27
Omaha, Neb. 26
Washington 18
Peoria, Ill. 8
Jefferson City, Mo. 7
Memphis, Tenn. 6
Phoenix 3
London 1
i-j
Ice Miller
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Indianapolis 190
Lisle, Ill. 16
Chicago 13
Irell & Manella
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Los Angeles 130
Newport Beach, Calif. 41
Jackson Kelly
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Charleston, W.Va. 91
Morgantown, W.Va. 23
Denver 17
Lexington, Ky. 16
Wheeling, W.Va. 9
Pittsburgh 8
Washington 7
Martinsburg, W.Va. 6
Evansville, Ind. 5
Clarksburg, W.Va. 3
Indianapolis 1
Jackson Lewis
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Los Angeles 48
White Plains, N.Y. 45
Morristown, N.J. 37
New York 34
Melville, N.Y. 29
Chicago 25
Boston 23
San Francisco 23
Atlanta 22
Dallas 20
Hartford, Conn. 19
Miami 18
Sacramento, Calif. 16
Seattle 16
Baltimore 15
Orlando, Fla. 13
Pittsburgh 13
Omaha, Neb. 12
Newport Beach, Calif. 12
Phoenix 11
Cleveland 10
Denver 10
Greenville, S.C. 10
Houston 10
Detroit 9
Minneapolis 9
Philadelphia 9
Raleigh, N.C. 9
Birmingham, Ala. 8
Cincinnati 8
Stamford, Conn. 8
Las Vegas 7
Portsmouth, N.H. 7
Memphis, Tenn. 6
Jacksonville, Fla. 5
New Orleans 5
Portland, Ore. 5
Albany, N.Y. 4
Albuquerque, N.M. 4
Milwaukee 4
Richmond, Va. 4
San Diego 4
Indianapolis 3
Norfolk, Va. 3
Austin, Texas 1
Jackson Walker
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Dallas 114
Austin, Texas 77
Houston 74
San Antonio 37
Fort Worth, Texas 16
San Angelo, Texas 3
Jenner & Block
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Chicago 297
Washington 76
New York 42
Los Angeles 19
Jones Day
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 317
Cleveland 211
Chicago 174
Dallas 163
London 158
Atlanta 134
Los Angeles 92
San Francisco 92
Paris 84
Columbus, Ohio 66
Tokyo 58
Palo Alto, Calif. 54
Irvine, Calif. 53
Pittsburgh 53
Houston 49
Hong Kong 44
Frankfurt, Germany 37
San Diego 32
Milan, Italy 29
Taipei, Taiwan 29
Munich, Germany 28
Madrid, Spain 25
Mexico City 25
Brussels 24
Sydney, Australia 23
Beijing 21
Boston 19
Shanghai, China 19
New Delhi, India 15
Singapore 15
Moscow 12
Dubai, United Arab
Emirates
7
São Paulo, Brazil 6
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 2
Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia 1
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 1
Jones, Walker, Waechter,
Proitevent, Carrère &
Denègre
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New Orleans 137
Baton Rouge, La. 50
Jackson, Miss. 49
Birmingham, Ala. 26
Houston 18
Mobile, Ala. 18
Lafayette, La. 16
Miami 13
Washington 10
Gulfport, Miss. 8
Olive Branch, Miss. 6
Phoenix 2
Montgomery, Ala. 1
K-L
K&L Gates
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Pittsburgh 188
Washington 181

32 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
The NLJ
Regional Report
Branch Offices
Chicago 163
Seattle 151
London 133
Boston 104
Dallas 95
New York 94
Charlotte, N.C. 93
Newark, N.J. 47
San Francisco 44
Los Angeles 40
Warsaw, Poland 38
Berlin 37
Miami 36
Raleigh, N.C. 35
Hong Kong 32
Palo Alto, Calif. 23
Durham, N.C. 23
Harrisburg, Pa. 22
Irvine, Calif. 17
Portland, Ore. 17
Taipei, Taiwan 17
Austin, Texas 15
Spokane, Wash. 15
Frankfurt, Germany 13
Paris 13
Tokyo 12
Singapore 11
Beijing 9
Dubai, United Arab
Emirates
9
Moscow 9
Anchorage, Alaska 6
Brussels 6
San Diego 6
Fort Worth, Texas 5
Shanghai, China 5
Charleston, S.C. 1
Doha, Qatar 1
São Paulo, Brazil 1
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres
& Friedman
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 292
San Francisco 17
Atlanta 15
Houston 13
Miami 11
Redwood Shores, Calif. 7
Katten Muchin
Rosenman
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Chicago 254
New York 168
Los Angeles 67
Washington 64
Charlotte, N.C. 23
London 8
Kaye Scholer
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 290
Los Angeles 49
Washington 40
Chicago 31
Frankfurt, Germany 18
Palo Alto, Calif. 12
London 10
West Palm Beach, Fla. 4
Shanghai, China 3
Kelley Drye & Warren
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 146
Washington 83
Stamford, Conn. 20
Chicago 19
Parsippany, N.J. 18
Los Angeles 16
Brussels 1
Kenyon & Kenyon
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 124
Washington 38
Palo Alto, Calif. 5
Kilpatrick Townsend &
Stockton
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Atlanta 203
Washington 66
San Francisco 50
Winston-Salem, N.C. 47
Menlo Park, Calif. 35
Stockholm, Sweden 32
New York 30
Raleigh, N.C. 29
Denver 28
Walnut Creek, Calif. 13
Charlotte, N.C. 9
Seattle 9
Oakland, Calif. 7
Augusta, Ga. 5
San Diego 5
Dubai, United Arab
Emirates
Taipei, Taiwan 3
Tokyo 1
King & Spalding
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Atlanta 346
Washington 149
New York 98
Houston 79
Charlotte, N.C. 26
San Francisco 25
London 21
Redwood Shores, Calif. 19
Austin, Texas 18
Moscow 14
Frankfurt, Germany 11
3
Paris 7
Singapore 7
Dubai, United Arab
Emirates
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 4
Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates
Geneva 3
Kirkland & Ellis
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Chicago 591
New York 308
Washington 199
London 100
San Francisco 86
Los Angeles 80
Munich, Germany 31
Palo Alto, Calif. 22
Hong Kong 18
Shanghai, China 7
Knobbe, Martens, Olson
& Bear
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Irvine, Calif. 161
San Diego 52
Los Angeles 14
San Francisco 14
Seattle 9
Washington 8
Riverside, Calif. 4
Palo Alto, Calif. 3
Kramer Levin Naftalis &
Frankel
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 294
Paris 27
Menlo Park, Calif. 4
Kutak Rock
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Omaha, Neb. 133
Denver 65
Scottsdale, Ariz. 41
Kansas City, Mo. 31
Washington 23
Atlanta 21
Fayetteville, Ark. 19
Little Rock, Ark. 19
Irvine, Calif. 16
Richmond, Va. 12
Wichita, Kan. 10
Los Angeles 7
Philadelphia 7
Chicago 5
Des Moines, Iowa 1
Minneapolis 1
Oklahoma City 1
6
3
Lane Powell
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Seattle 99
Portland, Ore. 62
Anchorage, Alaska 6
Olympia, Wash. 4
Latham & Watkins
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 324
Washington 260
Los Angeles 241
London 185
Chicago 153
San Francisco 116
San Diego 91
Menlo Park, Calif. 86
Paris 72
Costa Mesa, Calif. 69
Hamburg, Germany 69
Hong Kong 43
Frankfurt, Germany 40
Houston 38
Milan, Italy 27
Singapore 25
Munich, Germany 24
Dubai, United Arab
Emirates
18
Moscow 18
Madrid, Spain 17
Boston 16
Brussels 15
Newark, N.J. 13
Tokyo 13
Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates
11
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 8
Beijing 6
Doha, Qatar 6
Rome 6
Shanghai, China 4
Lathrop & Gage
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Kansas City, Mo. 138
Overland Park, Kan. 38
Denver 31
St. Louis 23
Springfield, Mo. 19
Boulder, Colo. 9
Chicago 8
Los Angeles 8
New York 6
Boston 4
Washington 4
Jefferson City, Mo. 3
LeClairRyan
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Richmond, Va. 91
Newark, N.J. 48
New York 28
Boston 27
Roanoke, Va. 21
Alexandria, Va. 18
Rochester, N.Y. 15
San Francisco 14
Los Angeles 13
New Haven, Conn. 13
Hartford, Conn. 12
Norfolk, Va. 10
Washington 8
Charlottesville, Va. 7
Williamsburg, Va. 7
Detroit 6
Blacksburg, Va. 4
Leonard, Street and
Deinard
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Minneapolis 172
Mankato, Minn. 6
Washington 5
Bismarck, N.D. 4
St. Cloud, Minn. 4
Lewis and Roca
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Phoenix 96
Las Vegas 36
Tucson, Ariz. 22
Reno, Nev. 16
Albuquerque, N.M. 7
Mountain View, Calif. 6
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Los Angeles 257
San Francisco 92
New York 81
Costa Mesa, Calif. 55
Las Vegas 49
San Diego 45
Chicago 42
San Bernardino, Calif. 34
Phoenix 31
Atlanta 29
Sacramento, Calif. 21
Tampa, Fla. 16
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 14
Houston 9
Dallas 7
New Orleans 7
Lafayette, La. 5
Newark, N.J. 4
Beaumont, Texas 2
Charleston, W.Va. 2
Tucson, Ariz. 2
Lewis, Rice & Fingersh
No. of
Office
Lawyers
St. Louis 131

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 33
The NLJ
Regional Report
Branch Offices
Kansas City, Mo. 29
Lindquist & Vennum
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Minneapolis 160
Denver 16
Littler Mendelson
Office
No. of
Lawyers
San Francisco 71
Los Angeles 61
New York 39
Atlanta 37
Chicago 35
Dallas 32
Philadelphia 30
Houston 29
San Diego 28
San Jose, Calif. 27
Cleveland 26
Minneapolis 26
Washington 26
Boston 22
Newark, N.J. 22
Phoenix 19
Las Vegas 16
Miami 16
Irvine, Calif. 16
Pittsburgh 16
Columbus, Ohio 15
Denver 15
Memphis, Tenn. 15
Mexico City 14
Walnut Creek, Calif. 14
Caracas, Venezuela 12
Seattle 12
Sacramento, Calif. 11
St. Louis 11
Charlotte, N.C. 10
New Haven, Conn. 10
Tysons Corner, Va. 10
Portland, Ore. 10
Kansas City, Mo. 9
Fresno, Calif. 8
Melville, N.Y. 7
Milwaukee 7
Rochester, N.Y. 7
Birmingham, Ala. 6
Detroit 6
Indianapolis 6
Orlando, Fla. 6
Monterrey, Mexico 5
Nashville, Tenn. 5
Lexington, Ky. 4
Providence, R.I. 3
Columbia, S.C. 2
Mobile, Ala. 2
Reno, Nev. 2
Albuquerque, N.M. 1
Anchorage, Alaska 1
Morgantown, W.Va. 1
Locke Lord
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Dallas 156
Houston 141
Chicago 90
New York 40
Austin, Texas 30
Washington 27
Los Angeles 25
Atlanta 12
Sacramento, Calif. 9
New Orleans 7
San Francisco 3
Loeb & Loeb
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 133
Los Angeles 130
Chicago 26
Nashville, Tenn. 5
Washington 4
Beijing 3
Lowenstein Sandler
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Roseland , N.J. 192
New York 41
Palo Alto, Calif. 12
M-N
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Los Angeles 144
New York 49
San Francisco 49
Washington 31
Costa Mesa, Calif. 27
Palo Alto, Calif. 16
Albany, N.Y. 7
Sacramento, Calif. 4
Marshall, Dennehey,
Warner, Coleman &
Goggin
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Philadelphia 126
Cherry Hill, N.J. 51
Roseland, N.J. 39
King of Prussia, Pa. 33
Pittsburgh 32
Wilmington, Del. 26
Scranton, Pa. 21
Harrisburg, Pa. 18
New York 15
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 13
Bethlehem, Pa. 12
Orlando, Fla. 10
Jacksonville, Fla. 8
Cleveland 5
Doylestown, Pa. 5
Erie, Pa. 4
Hauppauge, N.Y. 4
Williamsport, Pa. 3
Mayer Brown
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Chicago 389
London 255
Hong Kong 170
New York 168
Washington 147
Paris 70
Frankfurt, Germany 49
Houston 44
Los Angeles 31
Charlotte, N.C. 29
Palo Alto, Calif. 25
Beijing 23
Brussels 16
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 13
Cologne, Germany 12
Berlin, Germany 10
Shanghai, China 9
Hanoi, Vietnam 8
Bangkok, Thailand 3
Guangzhou, China 1
Singapore 1
Maynard, Cooper & Gale
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Birmingham, Ala. 168
Huntsville, Ala. 17
Mobile, Ala. 7
Montgomery, Ala. 1
McAfee & Taft
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Oklahoma City 146
Tulsa, Okla. 37
McCarter & English
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Newark, N.J. 178
Boston 72
Hartford, Conn. 40
New York 37
Wilmington, Del. 26
Philadelphia 18
Stamford, Conn. 7
McDermott Will & Emery
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Chicago 310
Washington 190
New York 131
Los Angeles 64
Menlo Park, Calif. 44
London 41
Irvine, Calif. 38
Miami 27
Houston 21
Munich, Germany 21
Düsseldorf, Germany 18
Rome 15
Paris 12
Brussels 9
Milan, Italy 4
McElroy, Deutsch,
Mulvaney & Carpenter
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Morristown, N.J. 140
Newark, N.J. 49
Hartford, Conn. 27
Philadelphia 19
New York 16
Greenwood Village, Colo. 15
Ridgewood, N.J. 13
Southport, Conn. 6
Wilmington, Del. 2
McGlinchey Stafford
No. of
Office
Lawyers
New Orleans 54
Baton Rouge, La. 38
Dallas 17
Cleveland 15
Houston 11
Jackson, Miss. 9
Albany, N.Y. 6
Jacksonville, Fla. 5
Monroe, La. 4
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 2
McGuireWoods
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Richmond, Va. 218
Charlotte, N.C. 171
Chicago 114
Tysons Corner, Va. 47
Los Angeles 46
Atlanta 45
London 43
Washington 35
Pittsburgh 31
New York 30
Baltimore 27
Jacksonville, Fla. 23
Raleigh, N.C. 22
Charlottesville, Va. 17
Brussels 15
Houston 13
Norfolk, Va. 12
Wilmington, N.C. 6
McKenna Long &
Aldridge
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Atlanta 156
Washington 112
Los Angeles 76
San Francisco 25
Denver 21
San Diego 15
New York 11
Brussels 7
Albany, N.Y. 1
Philadelphia 1
McKool Smith
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Dallas 58
Austin, Texas 30
Los Angeles 30
New York 27
Washington 10
Houston 7
Marshall, Texas 2
Michael Best & Friedrich
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Milwaukee 101
Madison, Wis. 49
Chicago 27
Waukesha, Wis. 14
Manitowoc, Wis. 4
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley
& McCloy
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 335
Los Angeles 79
London 51
Washington 39
Munich, Germany 23
Singapore 15
Hong Kong 13
Frankfurt, Germany 12
São Paulo, Brazil 7
Tokyo 6
Beijing 4
Miles & Stockbridge
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Baltimore 136
Tysons Corner, Va. 27
Rockville, Md. 15
Frederick, Md. 14
Towson, Md. 13
Easton, Md. 8
Miller & Martin
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Fayetteville, Ark. 1
Tampa, Fla. 9
Boston 58
Austin, Texas 2
Chattanooga, Tenn. 71

34 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
The NLJ
Regional Report
Branch Offices
Nashville, Tenn. 53
Atlanta 46
Miller, Canfield, Paddock
and Stone
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Detroit 106
Troy, Mich. 62
Kalamazoo, Mich. 29
Ann Arbor, Mich. 26
Windsor, Ontario 20
Lansing, Mich. 16
Chicago 15
Grand Rapids, Mich. 13
Warsaw, Poland 10
Toronto 9
Gdynia, Poland 5
New York 4
Saginaw, Mich. 3
Monterrey, Mexico 1
Shanghai, China 1
Wrocław, Poland 1
Mintz, Levin, Cohn,
Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Boston 226
New York 75
Washington 44
San Diego 31
London 8
Palo Alto, Calif. 4
Los Angeles 2
Stamford, Conn. 1
Moore & Van Allen
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Charlotte, N.C. 212
Morrisville, N.C. 34
Charleston, S.C. 25
Morgan & Morgan
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Orlando, Fla. 87
Tampa, Fla. 53
Fort Myers, Fla. 19
Davie, Fla. 14
Jackson, Miss. 13
Jacksonville, Fla. 12
Memphis, Tenn. 7
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Philadelphia 302
Washington 251
New York 172
San Francisco 121
Houston 61
Chicago 58
Los Angeles 55
Palo Alto, Calif. 44
Princeton, N.J. 37
Miami 31
Paris 28
Pittsburgh 24
Frankfurt, Germany 22
Irvine, Calif. 21
Boston 20
London 20
Dallas 17
Beijing 5
Tokyo 5
Brussels 3
Wilmington, Del. 3
Harrisburg, Pa. 2
Morrison & Foerster
Office
No. of
Lawyers
San Francisco 274
New York 183
Tokyo 117
Palo Alto, Calif. 101
Los Angeles 89
Washington 82
San Diego 65
London 40
McLean, Va. 32
Hong Kong 28
Denver 14
Beijing 8
Brussels 8
Sacramento, Calif. 8
Shanghai, China 4
Morrison Mahoney
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Boston 87
Hartford, Conn. 21
Springfield, Mass. 15
New York 13
Providence, R.I. 12
Parsippany, N.J. 7
Worcester, Mass. 5
Fall River, Mass. 3
Manchester, N.H. 3
Munger, Tolles & Olson
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Los Angeles 145
San Francisco 26
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Chicago 161
Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Columbia, S.C. 115
Atlanta 84
Greenville, S.C. 38
Charleston, S.C. 34
Boston 31
Washington 29
Raleigh, N.C. 27
Charlotte, N.C. 24
Myrtle Beach, S.C. 12
West Salem, N.C. 8
Huntington, W.Va. 7
Tallahassee, Fla. 5
Chicago 1
Nexsen Pruet
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Columbia, S.C. 72
Charleston, S.C. 26
Greensboro, N.C. 24
Greenville, S.C. 21
Charlotte, N.C. 17
Raleigh, N.C. 15
Hilton Head, S.C. 5
Myrtle Beach, S.C. 4
Nixon Peabody
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Boston 133
San Francisco 79
Washington 79
New York 75
Rochester, N.Y. 72
Jericho, N.Y. 31
Paris 28
Los Angeles 25
Chicago 23
Manchester, N.H. 17
Palo Alto, Calif. 15
Albany, N.Y. 14
Buffalo, N.Y. 14
Providence, R.I. 12
Shanghai, China 3
Hong Kong 2
London 1
O-P
O’Melveny & Myers
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Los Angeles 166
Washington 112
New York 98
San Francisco 82
Los Angeles 81
Newport Beach, Calif. 55
Menlo Park, Calif. 31
Hong Kong 28
Beijing 24
Singapore 22
London 21
Shanghai, China 20
Tokyo 20
Brussels 7
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Greenville, S.C. 39
Atlanta 37
Los Angeles 27
Chicago 26
Indianapolis 26
Raleigh, N.C. 25
Washington 22
Morristown, N.J. 21
San Francisco 19
Dallas 18
Kansas City, Mo. 18
Birmingham, Ala. 15
Cleveland 15
Columbia, S.C. 15
Tampa, Fla. 15
Denver 14
Houston 14
Costa Mesa, Calif. 13
Nashville, Tenn. 13
Phoenix 13
St. Louis 13
Boston 12
Detroit 12
Charlotte, N.C. 9
Pittsburgh 9
Austin, Texas 8
Memphis, Tenn. 8
Minneapolis 8
Las Vegas 7
New Orleans 7
Philadelphia 7
San Antonio 7
Portland, Ore. 6
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 6
Miami 5
Charleston, S.C. 4
Jackson, Miss. 4
Tucson, Ariz. 4
Greensboro, N.C. 3
Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe
Office
No. of
Lawyers
San Francisco 188
New York 177
Paris 108
Menlo Park, Calif. 84
Washington 80
Los Angeles 56
Hong Kong 47
London 43
Sacramento, Calif. 33
Düsseldorf, Germany 27
Milan, Italy 27
Tokyo 26
Shanghai, China 25
Rome 24
Beijing 20
Irvine, Calif. 17
Frankfurt, Germany 16
Seattle 16
Berlin 13
Munich, Germany 9
Moscow 8
Portland, Ore. 7
Parker Poe Adams &
Bernstein
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Charlotte, N.C. 115
Raleigh, N.C. 50
Columbia, S.C. 17
Charleston, S.C. 15
Spartanburg, S.C. 6
Myrtle Beach, S.C. 2
Patterson Belknap Webb
& Tyler
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 189
Patton Boggs
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Washington 242
Dallas 87
Newark, N.J. 59
Denver 39
New York 20
McLean, Va. 15
Anchorage, Alaska 11
Doha, Qatar 10
Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates
6
Paul Hastings
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 205
Los Angeles 130
Washington 98
San Francisco 73
Hong Kong 57
Atlanta 51
Chicago 42
London 38
Paris 38
Costa Mesa, Calif. 34
Palo Alto, Calif. 28
San Diego 27
Milan, Italy 17
Shanghai, China 13
Tokyo 12
Frankfurt, Germany 11
Beijing 9
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 636
Washington 56
Hong Kong 15
London 11

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 35
The NLJ
Regional Report
Branch Offices
Beijing 6
New York 116
Newark, N.J. 33
Chicago 119
Toledo, Ohio 9
Tokyo 5
San Francisco 113
Washington 31
Hong Kong 98
Cincinnati 4
Toronto 4
Wilmington, Del. 3
Pepper Hamilton
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Philadelphia 234
Washington 35
Berwyn, Pa. 32
Pittsburgh 32
Princeton, N.J. 31
Boston 27
New York 22
Detroit 20
Wilmington, Del. 19
Harrisburg, Pa. 11
Irvine, Calif. 6
Perkins Coie
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Seattle 245
Washington 74
Phoenix 69
Chicago 66
Portland, Ore. 58
Los Angeles 51
Palo Alto, Calif. 44
Denver 31
San Francisco 27
Bellevue, Wash. 23
Madison, Wis. 17
San Diego 13
Anchorage, Alaska 10
Boise, Idaho 10
Dallas 7
New York 2
Phelps Dunbar
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New Orleans 88
Baton Rouge, La. 53
Tampa, Fla. 42
Jackson, Miss. 29
Mobile, Ala. 21
Houston 18
Tupelo, Miss. 10
Gulfport, Miss. 6
Raleigh, N.C. 2
Phillips Lytle
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Buffalo, N.Y. 126
Rochester, N.Y. 26
New York 18
Albany, N.Y. 8
Jamestown, N.Y. 4
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Washington 153
Los Angeles 62
Palo Alto, Calif. 45
McLean, Va. 44
San Diego 27
Houston 23
London 12
Sacramento, Calif. 8
Tokyo 6
Shanghai, China 4
Costa Mesa, Calif. 2
Plunkett Cooney
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Bloomfield Hills, Mich. 78
Detroit 29
Grand Rapids, Mich. 9
Kalamazoo, Mich. 8
Petoskey, Mich. 8
Columbus, Ohio 7
Flint, Mich. 7
Lansing, Mich. 7
Mt. Clemens, Mich. 6
Indianapolis 4
Marquette, Mich. 2
Polsinelli Shughart
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Kansas City, Mo. 199
St. Louis 81
Phoenix 60
Chicago 45
Overland Park, Kan. 38
Denver 30
St. Joseph, Mo. 12
Springfield, Mo. 10
Washington 10
Jefferson City, Mo. 6
Edwardsville, Ill. 4
Wilmington, Del. 3
Dallas 2
Los Angeles 2
Topeka, Kan. 2
New York 1
Porter Wright Morris &
Arthur
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Columbus, Ohio 151
Cleveland 28
Cincinnati 20
Naples, Fla. 12
Dayton, Ohio 11
Washington 8
Proskauer Rose
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 357
Boston 100
Los Angeles 67
Boca Raton, Fla. 27
Paris 21
Chicago 20
London 17
Hong Kong 14
New Orleans 12
São Paulo, Brazil 4
Q-R
Quarles & Brady
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Milwaukee 172
Phoenix 92
Chicago 74
Madison, Wis. 31
Naples, Fla. 17
Tucson, Ariz. 16
Tampa, Fla. 12
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
& Sullivan
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 273
Los Angeles 192
San Francisco 77
Redwood Shores, Calif. 46
London 19
Chicago 15
Washington 12
Mannheim, Germany 10
Tokyo 3
Quintairos, Prieto, Wood
& Boyer
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Miami 30
Orlando, Fla. 30
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 27
Tampa, Fla. 24
Louisville, Ky. 13
Chicago 10
Jacksonville, Fla. 9
Tallahassee, Fla. 7
Pensacola, Fla. 5
Phoenix 5
Cincinnati 4
Lexington, Ky. 4
West Palm Beach, Fla. 3
Fort Myers, Fla. 2
Bristol, N.Y. 1
Reed Smith
Office
No. of
Lawyers
London 243
Pittsburgh 184
New York 146
Philadelphia 143
San Francisco 121
Los Angeles 92
Washington 89
Princeton, N.J. 49
Falls Church, Va. 44
Paris 39
Los Angeles 23
Munich, Germany 19
Richmond, Va. 16
Palo Alto, Calif. 13
Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates
11
Beijing 10
Piraeus, Greece 8
Wilmington, Del. 8
Dubai, United Arab
Emirates
6
Oakland, Calif. 5
Shanghai, China 1
Reinhart Boerner Van
Deuren
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Milwaukee 150
Madison, Wis. 21
Waukesha, Wis. 21
Rockford, Ill. 7
Phoenix 2
Denver 1
Robins, Kaplan, Miller &
Ciresi
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Minneapolis 156
Los Angeles 35
Atlanta 22
Boston 14
New York 13
Naples, Fla. 3
Robinson & Cole
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Hartford, Conn. 116
Boston 37
Stamford, Conn. 28
New York 13
Providence, R.I. 6
Sarasota, Fla. 4
New London, Conn. 3
Roetzel & Andress
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Akron, Ohio 52
Cleveland 33
Columbus, Ohio 24
Naples, Fla. 23
Orlando, Fla. 18
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 16
Fort Myers, Fla. 13
Washington 11
Chicago 10
Ropes & Gray
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Boston 471
New York 260
Washington 84
San Francisco 43
London 34
Chicago 31
East Palo Alto, Calif. 27
Hong Kong 15
Tokyo 9
Shanghai, China 4
S-T
Saul Ewing
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Philadelphia 73
Baltimore 46
Washington 24
Princeton, N.J. 17
Harrisburg, Pa. 16
Wilmington, Del. 16
Chesterbrook, Pa. 15
Newark, N.J. 7
Boston 4
Schiff Hardin
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Chicago 197
New York 36
San Francisco 30
Atlanta 21
Washington 18
Lake Forest, Ill. 8
Boston 1
Schnader Harrison Segal
& Lewis
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Philadelphia 83
New York 29
Pittsburgh 24
San Francisco 12
Washington 11
Cherry Hill, N.J. 6
Schulte Roth & Zabel
No. of
Office
Lawyers
New York 346
Washington 13
London 12
Sedgwick
Office
No. of
Lawyers
San Francisco 100

36 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
The NLJ
Regional Report
Branch Offices
Los Angeles 51
New York 45
Dallas 24
Chicago 23
Newark, N.J. 21
Irvine, Calif. 21
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 20
London 13
Houston 9
Austin, Texas 8
Washington 5
Hamilton, Bermuda 1
Seattle 1
Seyfarth Shaw
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Chicago 213
Los Angeles 118
New York 99
Atlanta 75
Boston 73
San Francisco 56
Washington 52
Houston 29
Sacramento, Calif. 16
London 2
Shearman & Sterling
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 339
London 87
Paris 58
Washington 40
Hong Kong 37
Düsseldorf, Germany 28
Frankfurt, Germany 28
San Francisco 22
Brussels 19
Munich, Germany 15
Singapore 14
Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates
12
Beijing 11
Tokyo 11
Palo Alto, Calif. 9
Toronto 8
Milan, Italy 6
Rome 6
Shanghai, China 5
São Paulo, Brazil 4
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter
& Hampton
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Los Angeles 125
San Francisco 77
Costa Mesa, Calif. 54
Washington 47
Los Angeles 45
Del Mar Heights, Calif. 43
New York 38
San Diego 28
Palo Alto, Calif. 17
Shanghai, China 11
Santa Barbara, Calif. 8
London 2
Beijing 1
Brussels 1
Sherman & Howard
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Denver 132
Phoenix 20
Colorado Springs, Colo. 13
Scottsdale, Ariz. 8
Aspen, Colo. 6
Reno, Nev. 4
Vail, Colo. 3
Casper, Wyo. 2
St. Louis 1
Steamboat Springs, Colo. 1
Shook, Hardy & Bacon
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Kansas City, Mo. 303
Miami 39
San Francisco 32
Washington 31
Houston 23
Tampa, Fla. 21
Irvine, Calif. 13
Geneva 5
London 5
Shumaker, Loop &
Kendrick
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Toledo, Ohio 85
Tampa, Fla. 59
Charlotte, N.C. 32
Sarasota, Fla. 32
Columbus, Ohio 11
Shutts & Bowen
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Miami 86
Orlando, Fla. 52
Tampa, Fla. 30
West Palm Beach, Fla. 23
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 20
Amsterdam, Netherlands 1
Tallahassee, Fla. 1
Sidley Austin
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Chicago 502
New York 333
Washington 249
Los Angeles 147
London 105
Hong Kong 69
San Francisco 50
Dallas 23
Palo Alto, Calif. 21
Brussels 20
Geneva 13
Singapore 12
Shanghai, China 11
Tokyo 10
Beijing 9
Frankfurt, Germany 9
Sydney, Australia 9
Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 563
Palo Alto, Calif. 76
London 54
Hong Kong 37
Los Angeles 28
Washington 24
Beijing 16
Tokyo 11
São Paulo, Brazil 7
Houston 3
Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 738
Washington 281
Chicago 178
Los Angeles 129
London 109
Palo Alto, Calif. 72
Wilmington, Del. 57
Hong Kong 52
Boston 47
Houston 23
Paris 22
Tokyo 21
Frankfurt, Germany 18
Moscow 14
Brussels 13
Toronto 10
Beijing 8
Munich, Germany 7
Singapore 7
Sydney, Australia 7
San Francisco 6
São Paulo, Brazil 5
Shanghai, China 5
Vienna, Austria 3
Smith, Gambrell &
Russell
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Atlanta 116
Jacksonville, Fla. 24
New York 24
Washington 6
Stamford, Conn. 2
Frankfurt, Germany 1
Snell & Wilmer
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Phoenix 192
Costa Mesa, Calif. 64
Salt Lake City 49
Las Vegas 43
Denver 30
Tucson, Ariz. 29
Los Angeles 11
SNR Denton
Office
No. of
Lawyers
London 272
New York 164
Chicago 125
Washington 67
San Francisco 54
Milton Keynes, England 50
Kansas City, Mo. 47
Dallas 46
St. Louis 39
Dubai, United Arab
Emirates
38
Los Angeles 33
Muscat, Oman 28
Almaty, Kazakhstan 19
Moscow 19
Paris 18
Cairo, Egypt 17
Doha, Qatar 16
Short Hills, N.J. 16
Palo Alto, Calif. 13
Hong Kong 11
Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates
9
Beijing 7
Phoenix 7
Kuwait City 6
Tashkent, Uzbekistan 5
Amman, Jordan 4
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 4
Manama, Bahrain 3
Zurich, Switzerland 1
Squire, Sanders &
Dempsey
Office
No. of
Lawyers
London 179
Cleveland 132
Leeds, England 100
Birmingham, England 94
Columbus, Ohio 77
Manchester, England 77
Washington 55
Phoenix 54
San Francisco 39
New York 34
Miami 32
Madrid, Spain 29
Paris 28
Los Angeles 27
Tokyo 26
Berlin 23
Moscow 23
Cincinnati 19
Warsaw, Poland 19
Brussels 18
Prague, Czech Republic 18
Tysons Corner, Va. 17
Budapest, Hungary 14
Santo Domingo, Dominican
Republic
14
Frankfurt, Germany 11
West Palm Beach, Fla. 11
Hong Kong 10
Palo Alto, Calif. 10
Tampa, Fla. 10
Bratislava, Slovakia 8
Shanghai, China 7
Houston 6
Beijing 5
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 3
Caracas, Venezuela 2
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Washington 259
Phoenix 39
London 28
Los Angeles 26
New York 22
Chicago 18
Brussels 15
Los Angeles 12
Beijing 4
Steptoe & Johnson PLLC
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Charleston, W.Va. 62
Bridgeport, W.Va. 58
Morgantown, W.Va. 38
Wheeling, W.Va. 16
Columbus, Ohio 14
Huntington, W.Va. 13
Lexington, Ky. 11
Meadville, Pa. 11
Southpointe, Pa. 7
Stevens & Lee
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Reading, Pa. 53
Valley Forge, Pa. 30
Philadelphia 20
Lancaster, Pa. 19
Harrisburg, Pa. 12
Princeton, N.J. 10
Bethlehem, Pa. 7
Wilmington, Del. 7
New York 4
Cherry Hill, N.J. 3
Scranton, Pa. 2
Charleston, S.C. 1

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 37
The NLJ
Regional Report
Branch Offices
Stinson Morrison Hecker
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Kansas City, Mo. 147
St. Louis 43
Phoenix 26
Washington 24
Omaha, Neb. 16
Wichita, Kan. 14
Jefferson City, Mo. 4
Stites & Harbison
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Louisville, Ky. 90
Nashville, Tenn. 47
Lexington, Ky. 36
Atlanta 23
Alexandria, Va. 12
Frankfort, Ky. 5
Jeffersonville, Ind. 5
Stoel Rives
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Portland, Ore. 144
Seattle 84
Salt Lake City 68
Minneapolis 19
Sacramento, Calif. 19
Boise, Idaho 17
Anchorage, Alaska 10
San Diego 3
San Francisco 3
Truckee, Calif. 3
Vancouver, Wash. 2
Stradley Ronon Stevens
& Young
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Philadelphia 134
Malvern, Pa. 34
Washington 21
Cherry Hill, N.J. 10
Harrisburg, Pa. 4
Wilmington, Del. 2
Strasburger & Price
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Dallas 82
San Antonio 41
Houston 37
Frisco, Texas 23
Austin, Texas 22
New York 3
Washington 3
Mexico City 1
Stroock & Stroock &
Lavan
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 233
Los Angeles 48
Miami 12
Sullivan & Cromwell
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 524
London 59
Washington 42
Los Angeles 33
Paris 23
Palo Alto, Calif. 22
Frankfurt, Germany 20
Hong Kong 15
Tokyo 9
Melbourne, Australia 6
Beijing 5
Sydney, Australia 4
Sutherland Asbill &
Brennan
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Atlanta 172
Washington 144
Houston 33
New York 22
Austin, Texas 5
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Cincinnati 90
Indianapolis 88
Cleveland 45
Dayton, Ohio 26
Columbus, Ohio 13
Covington, Ky. 3
Phoenix 1
Thompson & Knight
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Dallas 169
Houston 64
Mexico City 17
Austin, Texas 12
New York 10
Fort Worth, Texas 9
Monterrey, Mexico 5
Algiers, Algeria 4
Detroit 2
Thompson Coburn
No. of
Office
Lawyers
St. Louis 225
Chicago 48
Washington 25
Belleville, Ill. 11
Thompson Hine
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Cleveland 120
Cincinnati 55
Dayton, Ohio 47
Columbus, Ohio 38
New York 35
Washington 31
Atlanta 20
Troutman Sanders
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Atlanta 185
Richmond, Va. 107
New York 89
Washington 88
Irvine, Calif. 26
Virginia Beach, Va. 21
Hong Kong 17
Tysons Corner, Va. 17
Chicago 15
Raleigh, N.C. 14
San Diego 12
Norfolk, Va. 8
Portland, Ore. 6
Shanghai, China 5
U-V-W
Ulmer & Berne
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Cleveland 103
Cincinnati 51
Chicago 15
Columbus, Ohio 9
Vedder Price
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Chicago 192
New York 38
Washington 10
London 2
Venable
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Washington 207
Baltimore 143
New York 41
Tysons Corner, Va. 37
Los Angeles 36
Towson, Md. 20
Rockville, Md. 4
Vinson & Elkins
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Houston 279
Dallas 128
Austin, Texas 80
Washington 70
New York 62
London 37
Hong Kong 13
Beijing 12
Dubai, United Arab
Emirates
12
Shanghai, China 11
Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates
Palo Alto, Calif. 5
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 3
Tokyo 3
Moscow 1
Vorys, Sater, Seymour
and Pease
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Columbus, Ohio 194
Cincinnati 67
Cleveland 32
Washington 24
Akron, Ohio 17
Houston 10
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen
& Katz
Office
7
No. of
Lawyers
New York 245
Waller Lansden Dortch &
Davis
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Nashville, Tenn. 175
Birmingham, Ala. 4
Warner Norcross & Judd
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Grand Rapids, Mich. 159
Southfield, Mich. 28
Muskegon, Mich. 12
Holland, Mich. 8
Sterling Heights, Mich. 7
Lansing, Mich. 3
Weil, Gotshal & Manges
No. of
Office
Lawyers
New York 551
London 88
Dallas 78
Washington 69
Paris 56
Redwood Shores, Calif. 46
Warsaw, Poland 42
Houston 37
Boston 36
Prague, Czech Republic 30
Frankfurt, Germany 24
Miami 22
Munich, Germany 20
Budapest, Hungary 16
Hong Kong 16
Shanghai, China 10
Beijing 4
Providence, R.I. 3
Dubai, United Arab
Emirates
2
Wilmington, Del. 2
White & Case
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 402
London 270
Washington 140
Paris 112
Frankfurt, Germany 94
Tokyo 81
Warsaw, Poland 77
Miami 76
Hamburg, Germany 74
Moscow 67
Prague, Czech Republic 58
Mexico City 49
Berlin 44
Brussels 43
Stockholm, Sweden 43
Singapore 40
Budapest, Hungary 38
Los Angeles 37
Palo Alto, Calif. 26
Düsseldorf, Germany 24
Helsinki, Finland 23
Hong Kong 20
Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates
18
Beijing 16
Munich, Germany 15
Almaty, Kazakhstan 14
Bratislava, Slovakia 14
Bucharest, Romania 13
São Paulo, Brazil 10
Istanbul, Turkey 9
Johannesburg, South
Africa
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 7
Monterrey, Mexico 6
Geneva 5
Doha, Qatar 4
Shanghai, China 3
Milan, Italy 2
White and Williams
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Philadelphia 146
New York 22
Cherry Hill, N.J. 14
Center Valley, Pa. 11
Wilmington, Del. 10
Paramus, N.J. 4
Boston 3
Conshohocken, Pa. 3
Pleasantville, N.Y. 3
Wiley Rein
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Washington 258
McLean, Va. 12
7

38 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
The NLJ
Regional Report
Branch Offices
Williams & Connolly
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Washington 264
Williams Mullen
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Richmond, Va. 110
Raleigh, N.C. 45
Virginia Beach, Va. 40
Norfolk, Va. 25
Washington 17
Wilmington, N.C. 9
Charlottesville, Va. 6
Tysons Corner, Va. 6
Newport News, Va. 5
Durham, N.C. 5
Willkie Farr & Gallagher
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 366
Washington 92
Paris 66
Frankfurt, Germany 21
2012
BEST OF
Milan, Italy 16
Brussels 13
Rome 6
London 5
Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Washington 306
Boston 268
New York 141
Palo Alto, Calif. 46
London 31
Berlin 25
Frankfurt, Germany 24
Los Angeles 19
Brussels 12
Waltham, Mass. 8
Beijing 5
Wilson Elser Moskowitz
Edelman & Dicker
Office
No. of
Lawyers
New York 158
White Plains, N.Y. 156
Florham Park, N.J. 58
San Francisco 50
Chicago 49
Los Angeles 48
Albany, N.Y. 38
Dallas 31
Philadelphia 30
McLean, Va. 22
Las Vegas 20
Miami 20
Boston 19
Stamford, Conn. 18
Washington 16
Baltimore 12
Houston 11
Orlando, Fla. 11
San Diego 8
Denver 4
West Palm Beach, Fla. 4
Louisville, Ky. 3
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich
& Rosati
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Palo Alto, Calif. 332
Washington 51
New York 45
San Francisco 41
Austin, Texas 39
Seattle 36
San Diego 30
Shanghai, China 9
Hong Kong 3
Brussels 2
Georgetown, Del. 1
Winstead
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Dallas 115
Houston 57
Austin, Texas 44
Fort Worth, Texas 11
Charlotte, N.C. 10
Woodlands, Texas 10
San Antonio 9
Washington 2
Winston & Strawn
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Chicago 358
New York 163
Washington 117
San Francisco 68
Paris 66
Los Angeles 58
Houston 31
Charlotte, N.C. 24
Hong Kong 16
London 9
Beijing 5
Shanghai, China 5
Geneva 4
Newark, N.J. 3
Moscow 2
Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice
Office
No. of
Lawyers
Winston-Salem, N.C. 126
Atlanta 60
Charlotte, N.C. 59
Raleigh, N.C. 55
Washington 43
Charleston, S.C. 40
Greenville, S.C. 26
Durham, N.C. 24
Tysons Corner, Va. 23
Greensboro, N.C. 12
Wilmington, Del. 10
Baltimore 8
Cupertino, Calif. 4
Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs
No. of
Office
Lawyers
Louisville, Ky. 82
Lexington, Ky. 43
Memphis, Tenn. 35
Nashville, Tenn. 23
Jackson, Miss. 9
New Albany, Ind. 3
2012
BEST OF
Introducing: Best of
The National Law Journal
“Vendorocracy” in Action
The polls are open and the votes are flooding
in for the legal community’s favorite products
and services. Tell us who ranks highest in
your heart before voting closes on April 7.
Vote today: http://svy.mk/BestofNLJ
Vote
Now
For more information contact Kenneth
Gary at 202.828.0363 or kgary@alm.com.

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 39
Presents
The Managing Partners Breakfast:
The State of Chicago Legal Business 2012
With the legal business landscape continuing to shift, a group of Chicago’s top law firm
leaders will discuss the current state of the business of law in the Windy City and across
the nation. Join David Brown, editor in chief of The National Law Journal, as he
moderates a frank and lively breakfast discussion on a range of key questions.
Union League Club of Chicago
65 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL
Cost: Early Bird Special: $50/After March 30: $65
PANELISTS:
Nancy Gerrie
Partner in Charge
Chicago Office
McDermott
Will & Emery
Michael Morkin
Managing Partner
Chicago Office
Baker & McKenzie
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
8:00 a.m.
Breakfast & Networking
9:00-10:30 a.m.
Lively Panel Discussion
10:30 a.m.
Closing Remarks &
Networking
Susan Levy
Managing Partner
Jenner & Block
Frederick B. Thomas
Partner in Charge
Chicago Office
Mayer Brown
Sponsored in part by:
To register: bitly.com/Chicago_MPBreakfast
MPbreakfastAD_NLJFP.indd 1
2/22/12 3:35 PM

40 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
The NLJ
Presents
Our annual survey is
expanding to four issues
this year. Here’s what
readers can expect.
Join Us
April 18, 2012
St. Regis New York
Join us for a special dinner and awards presentation
honoring outstanding teamwork and achievement.
For Sponsorship Opportunities,
contact Andre Sutton
at asutton@alm.com or 757.721.9020
Sponsored in part by:
In the March 26 issue
In this issue, we published the classic NLJ 250 survey,
ranking the largest U.S. law firms by headcount and
including information about the number of partners,
associates and other attorneys at each firm.
In the April 2 issue
We examined the survey results on a regional level,
providing our deepest-ever look at state and city
results and providing market-by-market breakdowns
of top firms by headcount.
In the April 9 issue
This is the 35th year we’ve published the NLJ 250. In
this issue, we’ll look back at three decades of results
and assess how the legal industry has shifted since
we first surveyed firms in 1978.
In the April 16 issue
We’ll introduce a whole new crop of big players in the
legal industry—the NLJ 350. This list includes 100
firms ranked from 251 to 350 and allows us to take a
close look at the midsize-firm market.
On the web
Read results from previous issues and exclusive content
at our special NLJ 250 Web page, NLJ.com/
NLJ250.

news from
Washington
april 2, 2012 41
Stevens report backlash
Criticism mounts among prosecutors, and in Congress, over findings.
diego m. radzinschi
henry “hank” Schuelke III: Special investigator issued 525-page misconduct report.
BY mike scarcella
There was no trial for the Ted Stevens prosecutors.
There was no public proceeding to rebut
allegations that government lawyers intentionally
kept secret information that would have helped the
Alaska senator defend against public corruption
charges.
When a special investigator tasked with examining
prosecutorial abuses against Stevens submitted
his report to a judge last November, the U.S. Justice
Department attorneys involved in the case had not
been allowed to read and respond to the 525-page
document.
Since the publication of the high-profile report
on March 15, complaints have started to surface
both about the process of the misconduct investigation
and the findings that the special prosecutor,
Henry “Hank” Schuelke III, reached.
That criticism is expected to grow louder in the
coming weeks as attorneys representing members
of the Stevens prosecution team try to overcome
conclusions in the report—including allegations of
See stevens, Page 44
New drug battle rises in D.C.
Fed court plaintiffs claiming anti-miscarriage pills caused breast cancer.
By Zoe Tillman
Starting in the 1940s, doctors prescribed a synthetic
form of estrogen thought to prevent miscarriages
and other complications to millions of pregnant
women in the United States.
But in 1971, diethylstilbestrol, or DES, was
banned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
after studies linked it to health problems in the
children of women who used it, including infertility
and a rare form of vaginal and cervical cancer. In
the decades since then, children of DES users have
sued pharmaceutical companies that produced the
drug in courts across the country, accusing them of
failing to test DES and misrepresenting it as safe.
A series of new cases proceeding in federal district
courts in the District of Columbia and Boston
is bringing a relatively untested issue in DES litigation
to the forefront—the link between the drug
and breast cancer in the adult children of women
who used it.
See des, Page 45
Aaron Levine: D.C. lawyer building cases from studies conducted in the 2000s.
diego m. radzinschi
evan young
inadmissible
Trio of lawyers scores high court kudos
Long, Farr and Young: It sounds like a law
firm, or the slightly misspelled name of a soap
opera. But we’re talking about Robert Long, H.
Bartow Farr III and Evan Young, three lawyers
in the news last week who were appointed by the
Supreme Court to make arguments that had been
abandoned by the parties involved.
Long and Farr argued in the landmark health
care cases, and Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.
thanked both for “ably” discharging their duties.
Young, an associate at Baker Botts in Austin,
Texas, won Setser v. U.S., announced at length on
March 28 by Justice Antonin Scalia.
Young had been invited to argue by Scalia—for
whom he once clerked—when both the government
and defendant Monroe Setser agreed on
the sentencing issue involved. With that lineup,
Young said, “I assumed, of course, I was going to
lose.”
Victory was especially sweet because Scalia
wrote the opinion. “I owe Justice Scalia an awful
lot,” Young said. —To n y Ma u r o
FOR MORE Inadmissible SEE PAGE 42
Supreme Court Insider e-Newsletter
Exclusive insight and independent analysis from veteran Supreme
Court reporters Tony Mauro and Marcia Coyle delivered straight to
your desk or smartphone.
Subscribe today and become an insider!
www.nlj.com/scinsider/reg An Product
NLJ-10-01082 SupCrt Newsletter_Ad(NLJ-10.125x1.5).indd 1
An
Product
12/8/10 5:12:50 PM

42 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
inadmissible
O’Neill may be making
a move at Patton
It is almost embarrassing to be doing it.
—Florida Supreme Court Justice Fred Lewis to The Washington
Post for a March 30 story. Lewis and other justices in the state are
now accepting money from so-called “super PACs,” which
can make unlimited campaign contributions.
Kevin O’Neill
Although Nicholas Allard, Patton Boggs’ lobbying, political and election law practice
chairman, has three months to go before he becomes the dean of Brooklyn Law School,
at least one firm lobbyist already is scoping out his office. Allard, who will start at the law
school on July 1, declined to comment on whether Kevin O’Neill, the firm’s public policy
department deputy chairman, is his likely successor as chairman. But Allard joked that he
was “a little disturbed” to see O’Neill take measurements of his office last week.
“He is certainly looking at my office,” said Allard, who intends to stay on as a senior attorney
at Patton when he starts at Brooklyn Law School. Patton managing partner Edward
Newberry said O’Neill “certainly could be a good candidate to fill that role.” But he also
declined to comment on who the leading candidate for the post is, saying the firm has yet to
discuss who will assume the job.
Neither O’Neill nor Darryl Nirenberg, the lobbying practice’s deputy chairman,
responded to requests for comment. Patton last year placed second on The National Law
Journal’s Influence 50 list of top lobby shops, including those within law firms. The firm’s
121 lobbyists helped bring $88.5 million in gross revenue from lobbying work in 2010,
according to the data used for last year’s Influence 50 list. —An d r e w Ra m o n a s
diego m. radzinschi
Ex-AUSA facing ethics charges
The same week the Ted Stevens special prosecutor addressed his investigation
of prosecutorial malfeasance in that high-profile case, a committee of the
D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility said there was enough evidence to
bring an ethics charge against a former assistant U.S. attorney. The committee
members—Robert Bernius, Anthony Gracey and Karen Branson—said
Andrew Kline in 2002 kept information secret that would have helped a
man charged in a shooting case. Kline denies the charge and said he plans to
challenge the committee report. He told the panel the information was not
material to the defense and therefore didn’t have to be disclosed. “I don’t want
to call it a mistake,” he said. “I didn’t violate a rule.” The case could give the
D.C. Court of Appeals a fresh chance to examine prosecutorial discovery ethics
at a time when Congress is weighing legislation that would broaden the scope
of evidence that must be turned over. The hearing committee members said
in their March 28 report that “rigid enforcement” of the District of Columbia
professional rule on disclosure obligations is “necessary to inspire prosecutors
to comply with their duties as ministers of justice.” —Mi k e Sc a r c e l l a
inadmissible
The McCammon Group
is pleased to announce our newest Neutral
Hon. Joan Zeldon (Ret.)
Former Presiding Judge,
Civil Division of the Superior Court of DC
Judge Zeldon served the Superior Court of the District of Columbia with distinction for more
than 21 years. Her judicial career began as an Associate Judge and she served as the Deputy
Presiding Judge and then as the Presiding Judge of the Civil Division. She was a Member of the
Drafting Committees for the Uniform Mediation Act and the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act.
During her time on the bench, she conducted hundreds of mediations. She retired in January after
handling a wide variety of cases, including complex civil and family law matters. Judge Zeldon
now joins The McCammon Group to serve the mediation, arbitration, and special master needs of
lawyers and litigants in the District of Columbia, the mid-Atlantic, and throughout the United States.
Dispute Resolution and Prevention
For a complete list of our services and Neutrals throughout DC, MD, and VA,
call 1-888-343-0922 or visit www.McCammonGroup.com

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 43
stacey cramp
inadmissible from page 42
Hollywood Hill
Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.) is not a lawyer, but
he did play a judge on TV. It was Law and Order:
“Not that I remember much…but it was Season 5,
Disc 3, Episode 1, ‘The Guardian,’ ” Serrano riffed
during an appropriations subcommittee, where
Judge Julia Gibbons of the Judicial Conference
of the United States and Judge Thomas Hogan
of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts had
just testified about 2013 judiciary budgets. “So I
get a call to go try out,” Serrano continued, “and
they say you’re going to read for a Hispanic judge,
but there’s a problem with this judge. And I said,
‘Ohh…I’m not going to play a corrupt Hispanic
judge.’ They said, ‘No no, this judge is very liberal.’
I said ‘Oh, the part was written for me.’ So I threw
out the case in the first 10 minutes.” Serrano
added that it was filmed at the Tweed Courthouse in New York City and, “It’s on sale
now.” The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.), was so intrigued
that she asked Serrano to e-mail the episode video to her. That’s when Serrano showed
he knew a little about copyright law for a nonlawyer, when he dropped his jaw in
mock disbelief and said: “No. There’s a law against that.” —To d d Ru g e r
Paternity test
Leicester Bryce Stovell, the D.C. lawyer who claims he may be basketball superstar
LeBron James’ father, lost his latest attempt to keep his lawsuit against the James
family alive. Stovell sued James and his mother, Gloria James, in U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia, claiming his efforts to prove paternity had been thwarted
and that he had been defamed by statements
James made about having an
absent father. U.S. District Judge Colleen
Kollar-Kotelly dismissed the case, finding
that Stovell failed to prove any injury
or damages from his claims, among other
reasons. Stovell then moved to amend his
complaint, saying he had new information
that would resolve the issues behind the
dismissal. On March 29, she denied the
Leicester Bryce Stovell
request, saying Stovell hadn’t shown why
his previous complaint didn’t include the
proposed amendments. Stovell, in a written
statement, defended his motion to amend and said he will be “happy to appeal.”
Attorneys for the James family didn’t return a request for comment. —Zo e Tillman
Thrills and chills
He may look like a mild-mannered Midwesterner, but Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau head Richard Cordray is practically the bogeyman to bankers.
So much so that Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) at a congressional oversight hearing last
week predicted, “Next year for Halloween, they’ll have a Cordray costume for bankers.
You’re just a scary man to them.” Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) chimed in,
“I’ll join you. We’ll get a copyright on a Richard Cordray Halloween outfit.” Cordray
appeared before the House Financial Services Committee, reassuring members that
the new agency has little interest in playing gotcha when it comes to enforcing the
Dodd-Frank Act. —Je n n a Gr e e n e
Big shoes
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia
Superior Court met in a joint session last week to remember the life and legacy of
former judge Norma Holloway Johnson, who
served on the benches of both courts during her
33-year judicial tenure. Johnson, who died last
September, ended up as chief of the federal district
court. District Chief Judge Royce Lamberth
recalled the many “firsts” of Johnson’s life,
including being the first black woman to graduate
from Georgetown University Law Center.
Pamela Bethel, representing the Washington
Bar Association, characterized Johnson as a
judge who “did not try to be warm and
cuddly” while in the courtroom, but
was a kind mentor to those under her
wing. “Many of us sitting in this room
Norma Holloway Johnson
benefited from her counsel,” she said.
—Ro b Stigile
Jose Serrano
diego m. radzinschi
founders’ celebration 2012
women and the Law
Leadership Luncheon
April 10
12:00 pm – 2:00 pm
Women leaders from the U.S. and abroad gather at the Cosmos
Club to discuss challenges facing women in today’s global legal
environment and to network with students interested in global
issues. This year’s honoree and keynote speaker is Corrine
parver ’82, founder of American University Washington College
of Law’s Health Law and policy project, the summer Health
Law and policy Institute, and the health law specialization for
the LL.m. in Law and Government.
Register online at wcl.american.edu/founders.
CONFERENCE CHAIRS:
Wendy L. Bernero
Chief Marketing Officer
Fried, Frank, Harris,
Shriver & Jacobson
TOPICS TO INCLUDE:
champion what matters.
• Branding and Business Development
• Top Line Revenue Growth: Strategies for
Competitive Advantage
• Best of the Best Tools and Resources
• The Revolution Continues: GCs Discuss
How Firms Can Meet Their Heightened
Expectations
SPONSORS:
wcl.american.edu/founders
REGISTER BY APRIL 6 AND SAVE $100!
3 RD ANNUAL
presents
José E. V. Cunningham
Chief Marketing &
Business Development Officer
Crowell & Moring LLP
EO/AA University and Employer
LAW FIRM MARKETING &
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
LEADERSHIP FORUM
May 1-2, 2012 | The Harvard Club | New York, NY
Anne Malloy Tucker
Chief Marketing Officer
Goodwin Procter
• Navigating the Media Ecosystem
• Project Management:
The Core of Every New Business Pitch
• CMO, CBDO, CAO, CSO:
What’s New What’s Next
• The Quest for Talent in a Sideways Market:
Adventures in Post-Bust Recruitment and
Retention
REGISTER TODAY!
Call 212.457.7905 • www.americanlawyer.com/business

44 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
washington
Stevens report spurs concern from Congress
stevens, from page 41
intentional misconduct—that Attorney
General Eric Holder Jr. in March
described as “disturbing.” DOJ has yet to
release its internal investigation addressing
whether there were any legal ethics
violations.
Schuelke, who was court-appointed to
lead the Stevens probe, last week defended
his investigation at a hearing before
the Senate Judiciary Committee about
his report. Schuelke testified for 90 minutes,
marking his first public comments
about the rare investigation.
Senate Judiciary members peppered
Schuelke with questions about the mismanagement
of the Stevens case and
about his observations on any motive
that may have led to the collapse of the
case in April 2009 in U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.
“Prosecutors, plaintiffs’ attorneys—
defense attorneys for that matter—like
to win. It’s what we call contest living,”
Schuelke told Sen. Dianne Feinstein
(D-Calif.). “We go into a case believing
that our case is meritorious. We believe
that our witnesses are telling the truth. I
think that motive—to win the case—was
the principle operative motive.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the
ranking Republican on the committee,
questioned Schuelke about whether he
adequately examined managerial lapses
in the report, which pinned significant
blame on two assistant U.S. attorneys in
Alaska, Joseph Bottini and James Goeke,
but not on senior DOJ officials. “Doesn’t
the chief of the section that was in charge
of the case bear responsibility for failures”
Grassley asked. “Shouldn’t the
buck stop at the boss at the top”
The Stevens investigation, Schuelke
said, “catalogues in great detail” the history
of mismanagement. Schuelke said his
main objective was to determine whether
any of the Stevens prosecutors should
be charged with contempt for shirking
obligations to turn over favorable information
to Stevens’ defense attorneys at
Williams & Connolly. The report did not
recommend charges.
Bottini’s attorney, O’Melveny & Myers
partner Kenneth Wainstein in Washington,
said the Senate hearing highlighted
his concern that the Stevens prosecutors
were “cut out of the process” before
Schuelke’s report was lodged in the
chambers of U.S. District Judge Emmet
Sullivan.
“We are confident that Congress and
the American people will ultimately see
that the report is based on nothing more
than flawed reasoning, slanted factual
analysis, and a process that denied our
client and his colleague the fundamental
right to answer and test the accusations
against them,” Wainstein said.
FINDING THE TRUTH
Lawyers for four of the six Stevens
prosecutors—Bottini, Goeke, Edward
Sullivan and Nicholas Marsh, who committed
suicide in September 2010—tried
unsuccessfully to keep the Schuelke
report confidential. The two highestranking
DOJ attorneys on the case,
William Welch II, the former chief of the
Perhaps we are the
only ones who do not
appreciate the irony.
—Ro b e r t Lu s k i n
department’s public integrity section, and
Brenda Morris, Welch’s top deputy, did
not oppose public disclosure.
Edward Sullivan’s counsel, Steptoe
& Johnson LLP partner Brian Heberlig,
said in court papers unsealed last month
that Schuelke should never have published
his investigation in the first place.
Heberlig, who leads Steptoe’s white-collar
defense practice, drew a comparison to
the secrecy of grand jury proceedings.
Numerous courts, he said, have prohibited
a prosecutor or grand jury from
issuing a report accusing or criticizing
a person who was not charged with a
crime. Heberlig argued that disclosing the
Schuelke report would create a permanent
stigma for his client.
Schuelke did not find intentionalmisconduct
claims against Sullivan. But
the report as a whole, Heberlig said,
criticizes the government in “a collective
and undifferentiated manner.” He
said “there is a substantial public interest
in ensuring that a prosecutor does not
accuse uncharged individuals of wrongdoing,
a prohibition rooted in bedrock
Constitutional principles.”
None of the Stevens lawyers was given
access to a copy of Schuelke’s report
before he filed it with Judge Sullivan.
Patton Boggs litigation partner Robert
Luskin, who represented Marsh, said the
denial of access to the report was unfair,
leaving prosecutors unable to try to convince
Schuelke that he got it wrong.
“Perhaps we are the only ones who
do not appreciate the irony that Marsh
has been accused of failing to fulfill his
obligation to share exculpatory evidence
through a process in which the basic
protections of discovery have not been
afforded to him,” Luskin said.
After Schuelke submitted his report
under seal in November, Judge Sullivan
issued an order announcing the findings
of the investigation. The judge quoted
from damning passages but did not name
any prosecutor. Judge Sullivan noted that
the prosecution of Stevens was “permeated
by the systematic concealment of
significant exculpatory evidence” that
would have aided Stevens’ defense and
damaged the credibility of the government’s
chief witness.
The judge’s order didn’t sit well with
the Stevens team.
“The injury caused by a report like
the one at issue here results from the
fact that the affected individuals have no
authoritative forum in which to answer
and obtain vindication,” Heberlig said.
“That harm is particularly acute in this
case, because the court has already issued
a public order adopting the findings and
conclusions made in the report.”
Edward Sullivan, who has returned
to DOJ’s public integrity section as a trial
attorney, unsuccessfully tried to convince
diego m. radzinschi
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit to block publication of the report.
Heberlig said Sullivan challenged the trial
judge for “principled legal reasons, not
to avoid public accountability.” No other
prosecutor joined Sullivan’s appellate
court fight.
O’Melveny’s Wainstein said Bottini
“didn’t want to push too hard against disclosure.”
Wainstein said that once Judge
Sullivan issued his order in November
describing the findings in the report, the
damage was done.
Wainstein said in a March 15 letter
to Holder that Bottini doesn’t take issue
about flaws in the Stevens case, only
Schuelke’s conclusion that the errors
were intentional. Wainstein accused
Schuelke of “target fixation”—that the
outcome of his investigation, essentially,
was preordained.
“Every prosecutor—and especially one
investigating a high-profile matter—must
resist the temptation to conduct his or
her investigation as an effort to ‘build a
case’ against the subject rather than as an
effort to find the truth, no matter whether
that truth is incriminating or exculpatory,”
Wainstein said.
‘TARGET SEASON’
One critic of the Schuelke report,
Michael Volkov, a white-collar defense
partner at LeClairRyan, said in a blog post
on March 26 that the investigation “was
guided by a predetermined political result”
that included assumptions and ignored
contrary evidence. “It is target season on
prosecutors and the defense bar knows it,
and has used the media to promote the
perception that prosecutorial misconduct
is on the rise,” said Volkov, who was not
involved in the Stevens case.
Discussion of the merits of the Stevens
report will last for months as members
of Congress examine whether to adopt
a proposed law that would put a greater
burden on prosecutors to disclose evidence
to defense attorneys.
DOJ announced last week it will fight
against the attempt to reform discovery
practices. The department submitted an
unsigned seven-page letter to the Senate
Judiciary Committee last week that said
the legislation, which Lisa Murkowski
(R-Alaska) introduced the same day
the Schuelke report was published, is
unnecessary.
The statement said the legislation
“would radically alter” the balance
between protecting defendant rights and
safeguarding against witness retaliation,
disclosing ongoing investigations and protecting
national security.
At the Judiciary Committee hearing,
Schuelke urged the committee to study
any legislative request that would open
up the federal criminal discovery process.
But he also said that he doesn’t think the
conduct in the Stevens case is a national
problem. “I do not believe—the Stevens
case notwithstanding—that the public
should labor under the notion that what
happened in the Stevens case happens as
a matter of course,” he said.
Mike Scarcella can be contacted at mscarcella@alm.com.

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 45
washington
Plaintiffs in drug case facing several hurdles
des, from page 41
DES cases traditionally have been difficult
to pursue because of how long ago
the drugs were first prescribed, according
to attorneys involved. Medical records
are often gone, most of the doctors and
original patients have died, and there is
little to no documentation linking patient
prescriptions to any one pharmaceutical
company.
The breast cancer cases present additional
challenges, according to Aaron
Levine of Washington’s Aaron M. Levine
& Associates, lead plaintiffs’ counsel in
the breast cancer cases. Unlike some of
the other defects associated with DES,
such as the rare vaginal and cervical cancer
known as clear-cell adenocarcinoma,
the type of breast cancer at issue isn’t
unique to DES, he said.
Levine, along with other plaintiffs’
lawyers taking on DES cases, is building
his case on studies from the 2000s
that found higher rates of breast cancer
among adult children above age 40 of
women who were prescribed DES.
The main defendant, Eli Lilly and Co.,
has denied any wrongdoing. In its fiscal
year 2011 annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commis
sion, the company addressed the
breast cancer claims, writing, “We believe
these claims are without merit and are
prepared to defend against them vigorously.”
A company spokesman, J. Scott
MacGregor, declined to comment further.
More than a dozen other pharmaceutical
companies have been sued over DES.
Levine said Eli Lilly has historically been
the lead defendant because it was a major
producer until the drug was taken off the
market.
Peter Woodin of JAMS, a longtime
court-appointed special master in DES
litigation in courts around New York City,
said he has seen a drop in new DES cases
over the past 15 years. The children of
DES users usually developed reproductive
tract defects at a young age, he said, so
litigation tapered off as they grew older.
If plaintiffs prevail in linking the drug to
breast cancer in older adult children, he
said, “that would change the game.”
Levine has filed 78 breast cancer cases
since 2009, and said his firm is evaluating
dozens more. The cases were originally
brought in the District of Columbia
Superior Court or the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia, but 53 were
transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts in January
2011.
Mediation is scheduled to begin
on April 3 in the Boston cases. Sybil
Shainwald, who runs a small practice in
New York and has represented plaintiffs
diego m. radzinschi
in DES litigation since the 1970s, said
she thinks the pharmaceutical companies
“are less willing than ever to settle.”
Given how long ago the drugs were
prescribed, she added, “I think the companies
thought they would be finished with
DES litigation by now.…However, it’s lasted
longer, and they’re reluctant to pay.”
California’s precedent
The National Cancer Institute at the
National Institutes of Health estimates
that between 5 million and 10 million
people were exposed to DES in the
United States, including pregnant women
and their children.
Levine said the cases have usually
fallen into four categories: the clear-cell
adenocarcinoma cases; cases involving
infertility; cases involving birth defects in
the grandchildren of women who took
the drug; and, most recently, the breast
cancer cases.
Early DES plaintiffs ran into trouble
because they couldn’t produce evidence
detailing which pharmaceutical company
had produced a given dose of the drug,
said Richard Samp, chief counsel of the
Washington Legal Foundation.
A 1980 ruling from the California
Supreme Court in a DES case known as
Sindell v. Abbott Industries changed the
landscape for future DES cases. The court
laid out a principle known as marketshare
liability, where companies would
bear responsibility for their share of the
market for the product in question. In the
DES litigation, that meant that, if plaintiffs
prevailed, the pharmaceutical companies
would each be liable for whatever
percentage of the DES supply they sold.
“For the first time in litigation, courts
[C]ourts were willing to
overlook…that you’re
required to show a direct
causal link. —Ri c h a rd Sa m p
were willing to overlook the general
requirement that you’re required to show
a direct causal link between actions by
the defendant and injury to the plaintiff,”
said Samp, who defended pharmaceutical
companies in DES cases in the 1980s
as an attorney at Shaw Pittman Potts &
Trowbridge, which later became part of
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman.
Levine estimated that he’s handled
several hundred DES cases nationwide
since the mid-1980s. He said he filed the
breast cancer cases in Washington primarily
because of the city’s “liberal” statute
of limitations rule, which runs three
years from the time plaintiffs should have
known they were harmed because of
allegedly negligent actions. As the children
of DES users get older, he said, timing
has become a more pressing issue.
He said he joined with the defense to
move the first group of 53 breast cancer
cases to Boston because they thought it
would speed up proceedings. The cases in
Washington were assigned to U.S. District
Chief Judge Royce Lamberth, and Levine
said they were worried that Lamberth’s
full docket—especially the notoriously
time-consuming cases filed by detainees
at Guantánamo Bay—would slow down
the litigation.
The judge in Boston who had agreed
to take the cases, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Marianne Bowler, also has past experience
with DES litigation, according to
court filings.
Levine said that, even if more cases
transfer to Boston, he still would like to
keep some cases in D.C. Superior Court,
partly out of convenience and also because
he thinks local jurors and judges are savvy
and can understand complex cases.
“Are [breast cancer cases] tougher
We’ll find out,” he said.
Contact Zoe Tillman at ztillman@alm.com.
Whistleblower Laws and
Internal Investigations: Strategies and Practical Considerations
Listen to our On-Demand Webinar for tips, best practices and CLE credit.
Limited Time Offer!
Receive 10% off!
Use promo code 2229005 at checkout
to receive your discount!
To register, visit: www.lawcatalog.com/mar28 or call: 212-457-7706

46 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
CIVIl actions
The following cases were recently filed
in the Washington-area district courts. This
information is provided by the district courts’
official online bulletins.
U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia
Xereas v. Heiss
(No. 12-CV-00456, March 23)
Assigned to Judge Richard Roberts.
Trademark infringement. Attorney for
plaintiff: Stephanie Bald, Finnegan,
Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner,
Washington.
Boland v. JD Applicators Inc.
(No. 12-CV-00461, March 26)
Assigned to Judge Richard Leon.
Employee Retirement Income Security
Act. Attorney for plaintiffs: Ira Mitzner,
Dickstein Shapiro, Washington.
Coman v. Eli Lilly and Co.
(No. 12-CV-00462, March 26)
Assigned to Chief Judge Royce Lamberth.
Petition for removal. Diversity:
products liability: Attorney for plaintiffs:
Aaron Levine, Aaron M. Levine
& Associates, Washington. Attorney for
defendant: Laura Shores, Pepper Hamilton,
Washington.
U.S. District Court in
Greenbelt, Md.
Moore v. The TJX Cos. Inc.
(No. 12-CV-00888, March 22)
Assigned to Chief Judge Deborah Chasanow.
Petition for removal. Diversity:
personal injury. Demand: $500,000.
Attorney for plaintiff: Robert Wilson,
Wilson & Parlett, Upper Marlboro, Md.
Attorney for defendant: Michael Pivor,
Bonner Kiernan Trebach & Crociata,
Washington.
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Danby
Products Inc.
(No. 12-CV-00901, March 22)
Assigned to Judge Roger Titus. Petition
for removal. Diversity: products liability.
Demand: $500,000. Attorney for
plaintiff: Charles Fratus, Fratus Brady,
Annapolis, Md. Attorney for defendants:
Christopher Dunn, DeCaro Doran
Siciliano Gallagher & DeBlais, Bowie,
Md.
Farmers New Century Insurance Co.
A/S/O Tate v. Danby Products Inc.
(No. 12-CV-00949, March 27)
Assigned to Chief Judge Deborah Chasanow.
Diversity: property damage.
Demand: $350,000. Attorney for plaintiffs:
Robert Anbinder, Baltimore.
U.S. District Court in
Alexandria, Va.
Volkswagen A.G. v. Vee Dub Parts
Unlimited Inc.
(No. 12-CV-00331, March 23)
Assigned to Judge Anthony Trenga.
Trademark infringement. Attorney for
plaintiffs: William Cummings, William
B. Cummings P.C., Alexandria, Va.
L&W Supply Corp. v. LCJ and
Associates LLC
(No. 12-CV-00333, March 23)
Assigned to Judge T.S. Ellis III. Miller Act.
Attorney for plaintiff: James Judkins,
Cowles, Rinaldi, Judkins & Korjus,
Fairfax, Va.
Board of Trustees, National
Stabilization Agreement
of the Sheet Metal Industry
Trust Fund
v. Indy Sheet Metal Inc.
(No. 12-CV-00330, March 22)
Assigned to Judge Claude Hilton.
Employee Retirement Income Security
Act. Attorney for plaintiffs: Elizabeth
Coleman, Jennings Sigmond, Philadelphia.
calendar
d.c. moves
TUESDAY, April 3
TAX LAW: A committee of the Taxation
Section of the District of Columbia Bar
presents “The State and Federal Digital
Landscape—The Burden of Taxing 0’s
and 1’s.” The luncheon program begins
at noon. Speakers: Steve Kranz, partner,
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan; Mark
Nebergall, president, Software Finance
and Tax Executives Council. Location:
D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St.
N.W. Cost: free, government employees
who bring their own lunch; $10,
other government employees, nonprofit
employees and students; $25, Taxation
Section members; $35, nonsection member.
Registration and information: (202)
626-3463 or www.dcbar.org.
TRADE POLICY: A committee of the International
Law Section of the District of
Columbia Bar presents “The D.C. Bar’s
2012 Inter national Trade Law & Policy
Debate.” The program begins at 3 p.m.
Speakers: Gary Horlick, Law Offices of
Gary N. Horlick; Paul Rosenthal, partner,
Kelley Drye & Warren; Benjamin
Caryl, associate, Kelley Drye & Warren.
Location: U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E St. S.W. Cost: $5,
government and nonprofit employees
and law students; $10, members of sponsoring
section; $15, nonsection members.
Registration and information: (202) 626-
3463 or www.dcbar.org.
mandatory arbitration: Several sections
of the District of Columbia Bar
present “Recent Developments in
Mandatory Arbitration.” The program
begins at 6 p.m. Speakers: Lawrence
Cunningham, professor, George
Washington University Law School;
Archis Parasharami, partner, Mayer
Brown; Matt Wessler, attorney, Public
Justice; Craig Briskin, partner, Mehri
& Skalet. Location: D.C. Bar Conference
Center, 1101 K St. N.W. Cost: free, government
and nonprofit employees and
law students; $5, members of sponsoring
sections; $10, nonsection members.
Registration and information: (202) 626-
3463 or www.dcbar.org.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4
TAX LAW: A committee of the District of
Columbia Bar’s Taxation Section presents
“Part 6 of 7 New Tax Practitioners
Series.” The luncheon program begins
at noon. Location: D.C. Bar Conference
Center, 1101 K St. N.W. Cost: free, government
employees who bring their own
lunch; $10, other government employees,
nonprofit employees and students;
$25, Tax Law section members; $35,
nonsection members. Registration and
information: (202) 626-3463 or www.
dcbar.org.
THE SINKING OF THE TITANIC: The Environment,
Energy and Natural Resources
Section of the District of Columbia
Bar presents “RMS Titanic: 100th
Anniversary of its Sinking.” The brownbag
program begins at 12:15 p.m.
Speakers: James Delgado, director of
maritime heritage, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Office
of National Marine Sanctuaries; Peter
Oppenheimer, international section
chief, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration General Counsel Office;
Ole Varmer, international section
attorney-adviser, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration General
Counsel Office. Location: D.C. Bar
Conference Center, 1101 K St. N.W.
Cost: $5, law students; $10, government
and nonprofit employees; $20, members
of the Environment, Energy and
Natural Resources Section; $25, nonsection
members. Registration and
information: (202) 626-3463 or www.
dcbar.org.
Thursday, April 5
ADR: The alternative dispute resolution
committee of the District of Columbia
Bar’s Litigation Section presents “Getting
Started in Alternative Dispute Resolution:
Volun teer Opportunities in the D.C.
Metro Area.” The brown-bag program
begins at noon. Speakers: Kalee Bacon,
program coordinator, Center for Dispute
Settlement; Wendy Dean, mediation
officer, U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit; Karen Leichtnam,
ADR training manager, D.C. Superior
Court; Izabela Solosi, training program
manager, Northern Virginia Mediation
Service; Amy Wind, chief circuit mediator,
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit; Rachel Wohl, executive director,
Maryland Mediation and Conflict
Resolution Office; Geoffrey Drucker,
manager of dispute resolution services,
American Health Lawyers Association;
Arden Levy, Arden Levy Law; Carolyn
Stilwell, executive director, Conflict
Resolution Center of Montgomery
County. Location: D.C. Bar Conference
Center, 1101 K St. N.W. Cost: free.
Registration and information: (202) 626-
3463 or www.dcbar.org.
D.C. SUPERIOR COURT: Several sections
of the District of Columbia Bar present
“Bench-Bar Panel and Brown Bag
Program with Superior Court Civil
Division Judges.” The off-the-record
brown bag program begins at 12:30 p.m.
Speakers: Brook Hedge, senior judge,
D.C. Superior Court; Laura Cordero,
judge, D.C. Superior Court; Anita Josey-
Herring, judge, D.C. Superior Court;
Melvin Wright, presiding judge for
the Civil Division, D.C. Superior Court.
Location: sixth floor Board of Judges conference
room, D.C. Superior Court, 500
Indiana Ave. N.W. Cost: free, registration
required. Registration and information:
(202) 626-3463 or www.dcbar.org.
Dinsmore & Shohl
Reed Rubinstein, 51, has joined
Dinsmore & Shohl’s Washington
office as a partner in the corporate
department, where he will
focus on regulatory and advocacy
matters. Previously, he was senior
counsel and regulatory committee
executive at the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce. He earned his J.D.
from the University of Michigan
Law school.
Duane Morris
Harry Silver, 65, has joined the
firm’s Washington office as special
counsel to the health law
practice. He focuses on fraud and
abuse allegations, primarily under
the Federal False Claims Act, and
Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement
disputes. Previously,
he was a partner at Hooper,
Lundy & Bookman. He earned his
J.D. from Columbia Law School.
Locke Lord
Chris Hart, 51, was named cochairman
of Locke Lord’s board
of directors. A partner in the
Washington office, Hart serves as
chairman of the real estate and
finance group and co-head of
the financial regulatory reform
group. He earned his J.D. from
the University of Virginia School
of Law.
Please send notices of new Washington-area
hires or promotions
to Rob Stigile at rstigile@alm.com.
Personnel notices should include new
title and area of specialization, previous
place of employment and title,
education, and age.

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 47
Company computer policies risk becoming obsolete
BY nick Akerman
Policies must reflect new laws and court decisions on data theft, social networking and cloud computing.
Have your client companies’ policies kept pace with changes in the law
affecting computer technology New statutes and court decisions relating
to computer technology affect every business. Many companies overlook
opportunities to respond to these new laws by adopting robust policies to take
advantage of the protections they afford and to minimize the risks they pose.
The Practice
Commentary and advice on developments in the law
This article will review three critical
areas of computer technology that should
be addressed by company policies: theft
of data, social networking and cloud
computing.
• Theft of data. Federal and state laws
obligate companies to take steps to prevent
data theft, notify consumers of the
theft of their personal data and create
new remedies for companies to sue data
thieves. Policies are a critical complement
to these laws.
The most comprehensive of the prevention
laws is the Massachusetts regulation
that requires companies maintaining
personal data belonging to Massachusetts
residents, whether or not the company
does business in Massachusetts, to
institute a data-compliance program that
includes, among other things, security
policies that must be enforced through
technology such as encryption. 201 Mass.
Code Regs. 201, 17.03-17.05. The personal
data at issue—Social Security numbers,
credit card and banking information—are
data that can be used to perpetrate identity
theft. The obligation to protect data
is not limited to personal information. In
2004, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act caused the
New York Stock Exchange to require its
member companies to promulgate policies
as part of a comprehensive compliance
program to protect both personal
and competitively sensitive data. NYSE’s
Listed Company Manual, § 303A, 10.
Also, since 2003, 45 states have enacted
statutes requiring businesses to notify
consumers of a breach of their personal
data. Although these notification laws
do not require companies to establish
policies, they do require a company to
determine whether there is a basis to
trigger notification under the statutes
and determine how to comply with the
patchwork of 45 state laws. Performing
these tasks without response policies
will inevitably contribute to an uncoordinated
response and delay when some
states like California require notification
in the “most expedient time possible
and without unreasonable delay,” while
other states, such as Wisconsin, define a
more precise time period. Calif. Civ. Code
§ 1789.82(a); Wis. Stat. § 134.98.
A company cannot investigate data
theft unless it has policies that adequately
define an employee’s expectation of privacy.
In Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, 201
N.J. 300, 314 (2010), the New Jersey
Supreme Court, based on an ambiguity
in a company policy that allowed occasional
personal use of the company computer,
concluded that personal e-mails
were private. Also, with many employees
now using personally owned computing
devices to work outside of the office, a
policy permitting the employer to retrieve
work-related data from these devices reenforces
the employer’s rights to its data.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
(CFAA), 18 U.S.C. 1030, the federal computer
crime statute, provides for a civil
remedy for a company that “suffers damage
or loss” by reason of a violation of
the statute. 18 U.S.C. 1030(g). Liability
for data theft is based on whether the
access to the company computers was
unauthorized or exceeded authorized
access. The “CFAA…is primarily a statute
imposing limits on access and enhancing
control by information providers.” EF
Cultural Travel B.V. v. Zefer Corp., 318 F.3d
‘‘ Policies should address
what an employee can
communicate about
the workplace on a
social-networking site.
58, 63 (1st Cir. 2003). Thus, a company
“can easily spell out explicitly what is forbidden”
through its policies. Id. The violation
of the policy in turn is the predicate
for proving the critical element of the
statute that the access was unauthorized.
• Social networking. Social media pose
a number of legal challenges to companies,
including ownership of social-media
accounts, labor and employment risks,
and the protection of the company’s confidential
information.
Businesses commonly market themselves
on major social-networking
sites including Facebook, LinkedIn and
Twitter. As demonstrated by two recent
cases, ownership of this marketing
tool is not always clear. Just last July,
PhoneDog.com, a popular mobile phone
site, sued a former employee who had
amassed approximately 17,000 followers
on Twitter, claiming that the followers
constituted a company-owned customer
list entitling it to $2.50 per month per
follower or $350,000 in total damages.
In December, an employer and former
employee sued each other, claiming ownership
to the former employee’s LinkedIn
account, the popular social-networking
site for business professionals. Eagle v.
Morgan, 2011 WL 6739448 (E.D. Pa. Dec.
22, 2011). The only way to avoid the
inevitable lawsuits over the ownership
of these accounts is for businesses to be
proactive in establishing up-front policies
on ownership rights prior to adopting
employee social-media accounts as a
marketing tool.
labor and employment risks
Social networking is fraught with a
multitude of labor and employment risks.
Indiscriminately using social-networking
sites to conduct background checks of
new hires or current employees can lead
to discrimination or invasion-of-privacy
suits based on protected information discovered
during searches. For example,
in Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group,
No. 2:06-cv-05754 (D.N.J. 2009), management
learned of a password-protected
MySpace site used by its employees,
obtained the password from an employee,
viewed the site and then fired two
other employees based on what they
saw. The fired employees sued, and the
employer was found liable for violating
the federal Stored Communications Act,
18 U.S.C. 2701-11. A company policy
defining the circumstances under which
such Internet investigations can properly
be conducted could have avoided this
lawsuit.
What an employee can communicate
about the workplace on a social-networking
site should also be addressed in
a policy. The company has a clear interest
in preventing an employee from disparaging
it or releasing to the public its
confidential information, but it cannot
deny an employee the protected right to
labor organizing. In October 2010, the
National Labor Relations Board filed a
complaint on behalf of a Connecticut
ambulance company employee fired after
using vulgarities to ridicule her supervisor
on Facebook. The NLRB claimed
the company maintained overly broad
rules in its employee handbook regarding
blogging, Internet posting and communications
among employees. The case
settled in February 2011 with the company
agreeing not to prohibit discussion
of hours, wages and working conditions
on social-networking sites.
• Cloud computing. Cloud computing
outsources the maintenance of company
data to a third party. The potential
cost savings in having data maintained
by a third-party provider can be quickly
dissipated if company policies do not
anticipate the potential legal traps created
by entrusting data for safekeeping
to someone else. All of the company’s
current policies on security, record retention,
incident response to a data breach
and the obligation to provide e-discovery
in the event of a lawsuit or government
investigation must apply on the cloud
and be reflected in the company’s contract
with its cloud provider.
Although the cloud service is typically
the party in possession of the data, the
owner’s overall policy must be to maintain
control of its data so that the data
can be destroyed in the regular course
of the company’s retention policies and
preserved in response to a litigation hold.
For multinational corporations, this
also means policies to ensure compliance
with local laws governing crossborder
data transfers. For example, in
November 2009, the European Network
and Information Security Agency issued
a report on cloud computing warning
that companies remain responsible under
U.K. law for safeguarding their customers’
information even if those data are
stored by a service provider in the cloud.
Policies that worked yesterday will
not necessarily work today or tomorrow.
Every company should review its policies
to ensure that they adequately:
• Protect data and respond properly to
data breaches.
• Minimize the risks posed by social
media.
• Apply established policies and appropriate
foreign laws to data maintained on
the cloud.
nick Akerman is a partner in the New York office of Dorsey & Whitney who specializes in the
protection of trade secrets and computer data.
istockphoto/alexsl

48 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ April 2, 2, 2012
FIRST INSERTIONS
PROBATE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 SEB 102
BEATRICE M. HOGAN
Decedent
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Gerald B. Davis, whose address is 4116 Beall Street
Landover Hills, Maryland 20784 was appointed Personal
Representative of the estate of
Beatrice M. Hogan
who died on November 18, 2011 with a Will. All unknown
heirs and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown
shall enter their appearance in this proceeding.
Objections to such appointment shall be file with
th Regsiter of Wills, DC, 515 5th Street, NW, 3rd
Floor, Washington DC 20001, on or before May 02,
2012. Claims against the decedent shall be presented
to the undersigned with a copy to the Register of
Wills or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy
to the undersigned, on or before May 02, 2012, or be
forever barred. Person believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Gerald B. Davis
Personal Representative
Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Clerk of the Probate Division
/s/ Michael L. Barnes, Deputy Clerk
Date of Publication: April 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 228
LEE DUNLAP
Decedent
George A. Teitelbaum, Esquire
11141 Georgia Ave., Suite 514
Wheaton, MD 20902
Notice of Appointment, Notice to Creditors,
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Dolly Sparkman, whose address is 1304 Erskine
Street, Takoma Park, MD 20912 was appointed Personal
Representative of the estate of:
Lee Dunlap
who died on January 14, 2012, with a Will and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall
enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment (or to probate of decendent’s
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills,
D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.
C. 20001, on or before October 02, 2012. Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before October 02, 2012, or be forever
barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Dolly Sparkman
Personal Representatives
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication:
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 249
F. ELWOOD DAVIS
Decedent
Stephen W. Nealon
Furey, Doolan, and Abell, LLP
8401 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 1100
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Notice of Appointment, Notice to Creditors,
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Robert E. Davis, whose address is 5053 Klingle
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20016, was appointed
Personal Representative of the estate of:
F. Elwood Davis
who died on January 17, 2012, with a Will, and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment or to the probate of decedent’s
will shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C., 515
Fifth Street, NW, Third Floor, Washington, D.C.
20001, on or before October 02, 2012. Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before October 02, 2012, or be forever
barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Robert E. Davis
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 238
SEYMOUR RUBENFELD
Decedent
Barry R. Fierst, Esq
200-A Monroe St, Suite 200
Rockville, MD 20850
Notice of Appointment, Notice to Creditors,
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Jed Louis Rubenfeld, whose address is 1031 Forest
Road, New Haven, CT 06515, was appointed Personal
Representative of the estate of:
Seymour Rubenfeld
who died on July 25, 2011, with a Will, and will serve
without Court supervision. All unknown heirs and
heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections to
such appointment or to the probate of decedent’s
will shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C., 515
Fifth Street, NW, Third Floor, Washington, D.C.
20001, on or before October 02, 2012. Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before October 02, 2012, or be forever
barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Jed Louis Rubenfeld
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 251
NATALIE A. BAUM GOSSELS
Decedent
Stefan F. Tucker, Equire
Venable LLP- 575 Seventh Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Notice of Appointment, Notice to Creditors,
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Carol Baum Tannenwald and Susan Baum Gluck,
whose addresses are 3910 Garrison St. NW-Washington,
DC 20016 and 5455 Landmark Place #1104
Greenwood Village, CO 80111, were appointed Personal
Representatives of the estate of:
Natalie A. Baum Gossels
who died on February 23, 2012, with a Will, and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment or to the probate of decedent’s
will shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C., 515
Fifth Street, NW, Third Floor, Washington, D.C.
20001, on or before October 02, 2012. Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before October 02, 2012, or be forever
barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Carol Baum Tannenwald
/s/ Susan Baum Gluck
Personal Representatives
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
TAX LIEN/FORECLOSURE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
(Calendar #18 - Real Property Case)
Civil Action Number 2012 CA 2234 L(RP)
Calendar 18
REDEMPTOR LITIUM, LLC
Plaintiff
v.
1359 Florida, LLC, and Gregory A. Baltz, and David B.
Tolson, and Sanford Z. Berman, and Richard A. Finci,
and DC Dep’t of Public Works, Transportation Systems,
and DBT Capital, LLC and Anchor Construction
Enterprises, LLC, and DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and
All unknown owners of the property described below,
their heirs, devisees, personal representatives,
and executors, administrators, grantees, assigns or
successors in right, title, interest, and any and all
persons having or claiming to have any interest in
the leasehold or fee simple in the property and
premises situate, lying and being in the District of
Columbia described as: Square 5538 Lot 104, Also
known as: Certain Unimproved Property on Texas
Ave
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff in
this action, described as Square 5538 Lot 104, also
being sometimes described as Certain Unimproved
Property on Texas Avenue located immediately adjacent
to (but not constituting) the street address
known as 3432 Texas Avenue SE. The Complaint
states, inter alia, that the amounts necessary for redemption
have not been paid. Pursuant to the Chief
Judge's Administration Order Number 02-11 and D.
C. Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 4-I, it is
this March 09, 2012, ORDERED by the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia, that notice be given by
the insertion of a copy of this Order in the National
Law Journal, hereby designated by the Court and
having a general circulation in the District of Columbia,
once a week for three (3) successive weeks, notifying
all persons named as Defendants or otherwise
interested in the Real Property described
above to appear in this Court by the 3rd day of October,
2012, and redeem the Real Property by payment
of $71,880.09 (if not already paid as of such date) together
with interest from the date the Real Property
tax certificate was purchased; court costs and attorney’s
fees; expenses incurred in the publication and
service of process by publication and for reasonable
fees for the title search; all other amounts paid by
the plaintiff herein in accordance with the provisions
of D.C. Code § 47-1361 and all outstanding District of
Columbia lien amounts due and owing on the aforementioned
Real Property, and/or answer the complaint,
or, thereafter, a final judgment will be entered
foreclosing the right of redemption in the Real
Property and vesting in the Plaintiff a title in fee simple.
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 001967 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
ZENOBIA R. EVANS
3501 Saluda Court
Lorton, VA 22079
vs.
JOHNNIE MAE SICKLES 5611 North Capitol Street,
NE Washington, DC 20011-2339, And FRANCES
SNOW 5611 North Capitol Street, NE Washington,
DC 20011-2339, And PRLAP, INC., TRUSTEE c/o The
Corporation Trust, Inc. 351 West Camden Street
Baltimore, MD 21202, And BANK OF AMERICA P.O.
Box 26041 Greensboro, NC 27420, And WASHING-
TON GAS LIGHT COMPANY 101 Constitution Avenue
NW Washington, DC 20080, And THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, Serve: Mayor of the District of Columbia,
Vincent Gray, Attn: Office of the Secretary, 1350
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., #419, Washington, DC
20001, Serve: Attorney General of the District of Columbia,
Attn: Darlene Fields, 441 4th Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20001, And All Unknown Owners of
the Property described below, their Heirs, Personal
Representatives, Executors, Administrators, Grantees,
Assigns or Successors in Right, Title, Interest,
and Any and all persons having or claiming to have
any interest in the leasehold or fee simple in the
property and premises situate, lying and being in the
District of Columbia described as: Square 3708, Lot
0118. May also be known as 5611 North Capitol
Street. NE, Washington, DC 20011-2339
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 3708, Lot 0118
which may also be known as 5611 North Capitol
Street, NE, Washington DC 20011-2339. The complaint
states, among other things, that the amounts
necessary for redemption have not been paid. Pursuant
to the Chief Judge's Administrative Order
Number 02-11, it is this 29th day of February, 2012,
ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia,
that notice be given by the insertion of a
copy of this Order in the National Law Journal, a
newspaper of general circulation in the District of
Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the Real
Property described above to appear in this Court by
the 5th day of September, 2012, and redeem the
Real Property by payment of $1,512.63 together with
interest from the date the Real Property tax certificate
was purchased; court costs and attorney's
fees; expenses incurred in the publication and service
of process by publication and for reasonable
fees for the title search; all other amounts paid by
the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of D.
C. Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real
Property, or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right
of redemption in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 001581 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
ZENOBIA R. EVANS
3501 Saluda Court
Lorton, VA 22079
vs.
RICHARD COGDELL, JR 3618 Martin Luther King, Jr.
Ave, SE Washington, DC 20032, And TIFFANY COG-
DELL-GODFREY 3618 Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20032, And MILLENNIUM TITLE &
ABSTRACT COMPANY, TRUSTEE 2905 Mitchellville
Road, Suite 209 Bowie, MD 20716, And JAMES B.
NUTTER & COMPANY 4153 Broadway Kansas City,
MO 64111, And THE HUD FIELD OFFICE MANAGER
OR HIS DESIGNEE, TRUSTEE 820 1st Street, NW,
Suite 300 Washington, DC 20002, And SECRETARY
OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELPOMENT 451 7th
Street, SE Washington DC 20410, And THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, Serve: Mayor of the District of Columbia,
Vincent Gray, Attn: Office of the Secretary,
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., #419, Washington,
DC 20001, Serve: Attorney General of the District
of Columbia, Attn: Darlene Fields, 441 4th
Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001, And All Unknown
Owners of the Property described below,
their Heirs, Personal Representatives, Executors,
Administrators, Grantees, Assigns or Successors in
Right, Title, Interest, and Any and all persons having
or claiming to have any interest in the leasehold or
fee simple in the property and premises situate, lying
and being in the District of Columbia described
as: Square 6090, Lot 0013. May also be known as
3618 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, SE Washinton
DC 20032
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 6090, Lot 0013
which may also be known as 3618 Martin Luther
King, Jr. Avenue, SE Washington DC 20032. The
complaint states, among other things, that the
amounts necessary for redemption have not been
paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administrative
Order Number 02-11, it is this 15th day of February,
2012, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion of
a copy of this Order in the National Law Journal, a
newspaper of general circulation in the District of
Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the Real
Property described above to appear in this Court by
the 15th day of August, 2012, and redeem the Real
Property by payment of $1,254.49 together with interest
from the date the Real Property tax certificate
was purchased; court costs and attorney's fees; expenses
incurred in the publication and service of
process by publication and for reasonable fees for
the title search; all other amounts paid by the petitioner
in accordance with the provisions of D. C.
Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real
Property, or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right
of redemption in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 001966 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
MEGAN RYNO
3811 V Street, SE, Unit B
Washington, DC 20020
vs.
PORSCHE HARRISON 364 Freeman Ave apt #1 Long
Beach, CA 90814, And LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE
CORPORATION, TRUSTEE 1534 14th Street, NW
Washington DC 20005, And ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.,
SUCCESSOR INSTITUTION TO INDYMAC BANK, F.S.
B. 888 E. Walnut Street Pasadena, California 91101,
And MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYS-
TEMS, INC. P.O.Box 2026 Flint, MI 48501-2026, And
FAIRFAX VILLAGE V CONDOMINIUM UNIT OWNERS
ASSOCIATION Address Unknown, And THE DIS-
TRICT OF COLUMBIA, Serve: Mayor of the District of
Columbia, Vincent Gray, Attn: Office of the Secretary,
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., #419, Washington,
DC 20001, Serve: Attorney General of the
District of Columbia, Attn: Darlene Fields, 441 4th
Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001, And All Unknown
Owners of the Property described below,
their Heirs, Personal Representatives, Executors,
Administrators, Grantees, Assigns or Successors in
Right, Title, Interest, and Any and all persons having
or claiming to have any interest in the leasehold or
fee simple in the property and premises situate, lying
and being in the District of Columbia described
as: Square 5672, Lot 2522. May also be known as
2036 Fort Davis Street, SE, P-16, Washinton DC
20020
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 5672, Lot 2522
which may also be known as 2036 Fort Davis Street,
SE, P-16, Washington DC 20020. The complaint
states, among other things, that the amounts necessary
for redemption have not been paid. Pursuant to
the Chief Judge's Administrative Order Number 02-
11, it is this 29th day of February, 2012, ORDERED by
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, that
notice be given by the insertion of a copy of this Order
in the National Law Journal, a newspaper of
general circulation in the District of Columbia, once
a week for three (3) successive weeks, notifying all
persons interested in the Real Property described
above to appear in this Court by the 5th day of September,
2012, and redeem the Real Property by payment
of $1,049.43 together with interest from the
date the Real Property tax certificate was purchased;
court costs and attorney's fees; expenses
incurred in the publication and service of process by
publication and for reasonable fees for the title
search; all other amounts paid by the petitioner in
accordance with the provisions of D. C. Code §47-
1361 and all outstanding municipal lien amounts due
and owing on the aforementioned Real Property, or
answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a final judgment
will be entered foreclosing the right of redemption
in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 0001735-12 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
Capitol Tax Services, LLC
vs.
JAMES H. BANKS, JR, CO-PERSONAL REPRESENTA-
TIVE OF THE ESTATE OF GERTRUDE G. BANKS, and
WILLIAM L. BANKS, CO-PERSONAL REPRESENTA-
TIVE OF THE ESTATE OF GERTRUDE G. BANKS, and
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA F/K/A WACHOVIA BANK
and ELIZABETH ZAJIC, TRUSTEE HMTR1, LLC, and
CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA) NA, A DIVISION OF CAPI-
TAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORTATION, and PLATI-
NUM FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, and District
of Columbia, And All Unknown Owners of the
Property described below, their Heirs, Personal
Representatives, Executors, Administrators, Grantees,
Assigns or Successors in Right, Title, Interest,
and Any and all persons having or claiming to have
any interest in the leasehold or fee simple in the
property and premises situate, lying and being in the
District of Columbia described as: Square 5087, Lot
0940. May also be known as 4269 BROOKS ST NE
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 5087, Lot 0940
which may also be known as 4269 BROOKS ST NE.
The complaint states, among other things, that the
amounts necessary for redemption have not been
paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administrative
Order Number 02-11, it is this 22nd day of February,
2012, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion of
a copy of this Order in the National Law Journal, a
newspaper of general circulation in the District of
Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the Real
Property described above to appear in this Court by
the 29th day of August, 2012, and redeem the Real
Property by payment of $3,755.97 together with interest
from the date the Real Property tax certificate
was purchased; court costs and attorney's fees; expenses
incurred in the publication and service of
process by publication and for reasonable fees for
the title search; all other amounts paid by the petitioner
in accordance with the provisions of D. C.
Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real
Property, or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right
of redemption in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 0001720-12 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
Capitol Tax Services, LLC
vs.
CLEON THOMAS, and THELMA THOMAS, and
CHARLES L. THOMAS, and METLIFE HOME LOANS, A

the . national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ April 2, 2012 April 2, 2012 49
DIVISION OF METLIFE BANK, NA AND SUBSIDIARY
OF METLIFE, INC. F/K/A EVERBANK REVERSE
MORTGAGE LLC, and TS CONNECTIONS, LLC D/B/A
TITLE STREAM, TRUSTEE, and SECRETARY OF HOUS-
ING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT SENIOR OFFICIAL
WITH RESPONSIBILTY FOR SINGLE FAMILY MORT-
AGE INSURANCE PROGRAMS PROGRAMS FOR THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, TRUSTEE, and District of Columbia,
And All Unknown Owners of the Property described
below, their Heirs, Personal Representatives,
Executors, Administrators, Grantees, Assigns
or Successors in Right, Title, Interest, and Any and
all persons having or claiming to have any interest in
the leasehold or fee simple in the property and
premises situate, lying and being in the District of
Columbia described as: Square 4118, Lot 0816. May
also be known as 2336 15TH ST NE
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 4118, Lot 0816
which may also be known as 2336 15TH ST NE. The
complaint states, among other things, that the
amounts necessary for redemption have not been
paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administrative
Order Number 02-11, it is this 22nd day of February,
2012, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion of
a copy of this Order in the National Law Journal, a
newspaper of general circulation in the District of
Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the Real
Property described above to appear in this Court by
the 29th day of August, 2012, and redeem the Real
Property by payment of $8,167.32 together with interest
from the date the Real Property tax certificate
was purchased; court costs and attorney's fees; expenses
incurred in the publication and service of
process by publication and for reasonable fees for
the title search; all other amounts paid by the petitioner
in accordance with the provisions of D. C.
Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real
Property, or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right
of redemption in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
2008 CA 005777 L(RP)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge J.E. Beshouri
SHILA YAZDANI
11426 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
Plaintiff
v.
THE ESTATE OF ROBERT K. DAVIDSON c/o Daivd L.
Sfaha Carmody & Torrance, LLP 50 Leavenworth
Street Waterbury, CT 06702, And THE ESTATE OF
ALICE ELIZABETH DAVIDSON SCHAAB c/o Charles L.
Schaab 3500 Galt Ocean Drive, Unit 1117 Fort Lauderdale,
FL 33308, And The District of Columbia,
Serve: Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of the District of Columbia,
Attn: Gladys Herring or Tabatha Braxton,
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.
20004; Serve: Richard Amato, Acting Attorney General
of the District of Columbia, Attn: Darlene Fields
or Nadine Wilburn, 441 4th Street, N.W., 6th Floor,
Washington, D.C. 20001, And All unknown owners of
the real property described below, their heirs, devisees,
personal representatives, executors, administrators,
assigns or successors in right, title, and interest
and any and all persons having or claiming to
have any interest in the leasehold or the fee simple
in the real property and premises situate, lying, and
being in the District of Columbia, described as:
Square 4304, Suffix E, Lot 00810 and assessed to
The Estate of Robert K. Davidson and The Estate
Alice Elizabeth Davidson-Schaab, having a street address
more commonly known as a vacant lot situated
on Otis Place, N.E., approximately 157 feet from
the intersection of Otis Street, N.E., and 31st Place,
N.E., located two lots to the right of the property located
at 3030 Otis Street, N.E., in the city of Washington,
District of Columbia.
Defendants.
AMENDED ORDER OF PUBLICATION
In Accordance with D.C.Official Code §47-1375 (2001
ed.), the object of this proceeding is to secure the
foreclosure of the right of redemption in the following
real property, located in the District of Columbia,
and sold by the Mayor of the District of Columbia to
the Plaintiff in this action, which property is assessed
to the Estate of Robert K. Davidson and the
Estate of Alice Elizabeth Davidson Schaab, and which
is described as Square: 4304, Suffix E, Lot: 0810,
having a property has a street address more commonly
known as a vacant lot located on Otis Street,
N.E., approximately 157 feet from the intersection of
Otis Street, N.E., and 31st Place, N.E., approximatley
two lots to the right of the property located at 3030
Otis Street, N.E., in the city of Washington, District
of Columbia. The Amended Complaint states, among
other things, that the amounts necessary for redemption
have not been paid. Pursuant to the Chief
Judge's Administration Order Number 02-11, it is
this 7th day of March, 2012, ORDERED by the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia, that notice be
given by the insertion of a copy of this order in the
National Law Journal, having a general circulation in
the District of Columbia, once a week for three (3)
successive weeks, notifying all persons interested in
the real property described above to appear in this
Court by the 23rd day of May, 2012, and redeem the
real property by payment of $408.69 together with
interest from the date the real property tax certificate
was purchased; court costs; reasonable attorneys'
fees; expenses incurred in the publication and
service of process; and all other amounts in accordance
with the provisions of D.C. Code §47-1361
through 1377 (2001 ed.), et seq., or answer the complaint
or, thereafter, a final judgment will be entered
foreclosing the right of redemption in the real property
and vesting in the plaintiff a title in fee simple.
/s/ Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
(Signed in chambers)
Dates of Publication
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 0001732-12 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
Capitol Tax Services, LLC
vs.
PARIS L HARVIN, and NELLIE M HARVIN, and JAMES
B. NUTTER & COMPANY, and MATTHEW J. LYNCH,
TRUSTEE, and SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, and SENIOR OFFICIAL WITH RE-
SPONSIBILTY FOR SINGLE FAMILY MORTAGE INSU-
RANCE PROGRAMS FOR THE UNITED STATES DE-
PARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOP-
MENT, TRUSTEE, and CAPITAL BANK, NA, FBO MU-
NITRUST CAPITAL FUND II LLC, and District of Columbia,
And All Unknown Owners of the Property described
below, their Heirs, Personal Representatives,
Executors, Administrators, Grantees, Assigns
or Successors in Right, Title, Interest, and Any and
all persons having or claiming to have any interest in
the leasehold or fee simple in the property and
premises situate, lying and being in the District of
Columbia described as: Square 3755, Lot 0030. May
also be known as 5148 8TH ST NE
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 3755, Lot 0030
which may also be known as 5148 8TH ST NE. The
complaint states, among other things, that the
amounts necessary for redemption have not been
paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administrative
Order Number 02-11, it is this 22nd day of February,
2012, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion of
a copy of this Order in the National Law Journal, a
newspaper of general circulation in the District of
Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the Real
Property described above to appear in this Court by
the 29th day of August, 2012, and redeem the Real
Property by payment of $3,449.37 together with interest
from the date the Real Property tax certificate
was purchased; court costs and attorney's fees; expenses
incurred in the publication and service of
process by publication and for reasonable fees for
the title search; all other amounts paid by the petitioner
in accordance with the provisions of D. C.
Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real
Property, or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right
of redemption in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 0001722-12 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
Capitol Tax Services, LLC
vs.
PETER ALAN COLEMAN, and District of Columbia,
And All Unknown Owners of the Property described
below, their Heirs, Personal Representatives, Executors,
Administrators, Grantees, Assigns or Successors
in Right, Title, Interest, and Any and all persons
having or claiming to have any interest in the leasehold
or fee simple in the property and premises situate,
lying and being in the District of Columbia described
as: Square 5148, Lot 0055. May also be
known as 4619 HAYES ST NE
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 5148, Lot 0055
which may also be known as 4619 HAYES ST NE. The
complaint states, among other things, that the
amounts necessary for redemption have not been
paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administrative
Order Number 02-11, it is this 22nd day of February,
2012, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion of
a copy of this Order in the National Law Journal, a
newspaper of general circulation in the District of
Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the Real
Property described above to appear in this Court by
the 29th day of August, 2012, and redeem the Real
Property by payment of $2,767.17 together with interest
from the date the Real Property tax certificate
was purchased; court costs and attorney's fees; expenses
incurred in the publication and service of
process by publication and for reasonable fees for
the title search; all other amounts paid by the petitioner
in accordance with the provisions of D. C.
Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real
Property, or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right
of redemption in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 0001687-12 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
Capitol Tax Services, LLC
vs.
CAROLINE WILLS, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE ESTATE OF FRANCES I. PERRIN, and DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & COM-
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING & COMMUNI-
TY DEVELOPMENT, and DENA C. REED, TRUSTEE,
and District of Columbia, And All Unknown Owners of
the Property described below, their Heirs, Personal
Representatives, Executors, Administrators, Grantees,
Assigns or Successors in Right, Title, Interest,
and Any and all persons having or claiming to have
any interest in the leasehold or fee simple in the
property and premises situate, lying and being in the
District of Columbia described as: Square 4214, Lot
0817. May also be known as 2018 EVARTS ST NE
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 4214, Lot 0817
which may also be known as 2018 EVARTS ST NE.
The complaint states, among other things, that the
amounts necessary for redemption have not been
paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administrative
Order Number 02-11, it is this 22nd day of February,
2012, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion of
a copy of this Order in the National Law Journal, a
newspaper of general circulation in the District of
Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the Real
Property described above to appear in this Court by
the 22th day of August, 2012, and redeem the Real
Property by payment of $13,405.40 together with interest
from the date the Real Property tax certificate
was purchased; court costs and attorney's fees; expenses
incurred in the publication and service of
process by publication and for reasonable fees for
the title search; all other amounts paid by the petitioner
in accordance with the provisions of D. C.
Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real
Property, or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right
of redemption in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 0001674-12 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
Capitol Tax Services, LLC
vs.
TIMOTHY ARMAND SMITH, and MORTGAGE ELEC-
TRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC A/K/A
MERS, and CAPITAL ONE, NA, A WHOLLY OWNED
SUBSIDARY OF CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORA-
TION F/K/A CHEVY CHASE BANK FSB, and DAVID N.
PRENSKY, TRUSTEE, and District of Columbia, And
All Unknown Owners of the Property described below,
their Heirs, Personal Representatives, Executors,
Administrators, Grantees, Assigns or Successors
in Right, Title, Interest, and Any and all persons
having or claiming to have any interest in the leasehold
or fee simple in the property and premises situate,
lying and being in the District of Columbia described
as: Square 3983, Lot 0037. May also be
known as 5025 13TH ST NE
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 3983, Lot 0037
which may also be known as 5025 13TH ST NE. The
complaint states, among other things, that the
amounts necessary for redemption have not been
paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administrative
Order Number 02-11, it is this 22nd day of February,
2012, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion of
a copy of this Order in the National Law Journal, a
newspaper of general circulation in the District of
Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the Real
Property described above to appear in this Court by
the 22th day of August, 2012, and redeem the Real
Property by payment of $1,830.81 together with interest
from the date the Real Property tax certificate
was purchased; court costs and attorney's fees; expenses
incurred in the publication and service of
process by publication and for reasonable fees for
the title search; all other amounts paid by the petitioner
in accordance with the provisions of D. C.
Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real
Property, or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right
of redemption in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 0001726-12 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
Capitol Tax Services, LLC
vs.
IMELDA C ANYAOHA, and DAVID E ANYAOHA, and
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS,
INC A/K/A MERS, and AMERICAN HOME MORT-
GAGE, and AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVIC-
ING, INC., SERVICER OF AMERICAN HOME MORT-
GAGE, and TODD B. EWING, TRUSTEE, and District
of Columbia, And All Unknown Owners of the Property
described below, their Heirs, Personal Representatives,
Executors, Administrators, Grantees, Assigns
or Successors in Right, Title, Interest, and Any
and all persons having or claiming to have any interest
in the leasehold or fee simple in the property and
premises situate, lying and being in the District of
Columbia described as: Square 5176, Lot 0276. May
also be known as 928 52ND ST NE
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 5176, Lot 0276
which may also be known as 928 52ND ST NE. The
complaint states, among other things, that the
amounts necessary for redemption have not been
paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administrative
Order Number 02-11, it is this 22nd day of February,
2012, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion of
a copy of this Order in the National Law Journal, a
newspaper of general circulation in the District of
Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the Real
Property described above to appear in this Court by
the 29th day of August, 2012, and redeem the Real
Property by payment of $4,167.42 together with interest
from the date the Real Property tax certificate
was purchased; court costs and attorney's fees; expenses
incurred in the publication and service of
process by publication and for reasonable fees for
the title search; all other amounts paid by the petitioner
in accordance with the provisions of D. C.
Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real
Property, or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right
of redemption in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 0001725-12 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
Capitol Tax Services, LLC
vs.
RODNEY V SPENCER, and GERI M. WADA, and
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS,
INC A/K/A MERS, and BNC MORTGAGE LLC F/K/A
BNC MORTGAGE INC., and VINH PHAM, TRUSTEE,
and District of Columbia, And All Unknown Owners of
the Property described below, their Heirs, Personal
Representatives, Executors, Administrators, Grantees,
Assigns or Successors in Right, Title, Interest,
and Any and all persons having or claiming to have
any interest in the leasehold or fee simple in the
property and premises situate, lying and being in the
District of Columbia described as: Square 5394, Lot
0064. May also be known as 4316 CHAPLIN ST NE
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 5394, Lot 0064
which may also be known as 4316 CHAPLIN ST NE.
The complaint states, among other things, that the
amounts necessary for redemption have not been
paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administrative
Order Number 02-11, it is this 22nd day of February,
2012, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion of
a copy of this Order in the National Law Journal, a
newspaper of general circulation in the District of
Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the Real
Property described above to appear in this Court by
the 29th day of August, 2012, and redeem the Real
Property by payment of $2,187.36 together with interest
from the date the Real Property tax certificate
was purchased; court costs and attorney's fees; expenses
incurred in the publication and service of
process by publication and for reasonable fees for
the title search; all other amounts paid by the petitioner
in accordance with the provisions of D. C.
Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real
Property, or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right
of redemption in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 0001690-12 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
Capitol Tax Services, LLC
vs.
JAB PROPERTIES AND MANAGEMENT LLC, and OLA-
DEINDE O. OLAGBEGI, and PAT HARRINGTON, and
WANDA HARRINGTON, and MICHAEL E. GROSS,
ESQ., TRUSTEE, and District of Columbia, And All Unknown
Owners of the Property described below,
their Heirs, Personal Representatives, Executors,
Administrators, Grantees, Assigns or Successors in
Right, Title, Interest, and Any and all persons having
or claiming to have any interest in the leasehold or
fee simple in the property and premises situate, lying
and being in the District of Columbia described
as: Square 4445, Lot 0117. May also be known as
1814 M ST NE
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 4445, Lot 0117
which may also be known as 1814 M ST NE. The
complaint states, among other things, that the
amounts necessary for redemption have not been
paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administrative
Order Number 02-11, it is this 22nd day of February,
2012, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion of
a copy of this Order in the National Law Journal, a
newspaper of general circulation in the District of
Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the Real
Property described above to appear in this Court by
the 22th day of August, 2012, and redeem the Real
Property by payment of $3,192.74 together with interest
from the date the Real Property tax certificate
was purchased; court costs and attorney's fees; expenses
incurred in the publication and service of
process by publication and for reasonable fees for
the title search; all other amounts paid by the petitioner
in accordance with the provisions of D. C.
Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real
Property, or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right
of redemption in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication

50 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ April 2, 2, 2012
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 0001730-12 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
Capitol Tax Services, LLC
vs.
PEARL CHASE, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ESTATE OF CHARLES ALLOYSIOUS CHASE (A/K/A
CHARLES A CHASE), and District of Columbia, And All
Unknown Owners of the Property described below,
their Heirs, Personal Representatives, Executors,
Administrators, Grantees, Assigns or Successors in
Right, Title, Interest, and Any and all persons having
or claiming to have any interest in the leasehold or
fee simple in the property and premises situate, lying
and being in the District of Columbia described
as: Square 4516, Lot 0111. May also be known as
516 23RD PL NE
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 4516, Lot 0111
which may also be known as 516 23rd Pl NE. The
complaint states, among other things, that the
amounts necessary for redemption have not been
paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administrative
Order Number 02-11, it is this 22nd day of February,
2012, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion of
a copy of this Order in the National Law Journal, a
newspaper of general circulation in the District of
Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the Real
Property described above to appear in this Court by
the 29th day of August, 2012, and redeem the Real
Property by payment of $2,090.26 together with interest
from the date the Real Property tax certificate
was purchased; court costs and attorney's fees; expenses
incurred in the publication and service of
process by publication and for reasonable fees for
the title search; all other amounts paid by the petitioner
in accordance with the provisions of D. C.
Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real
Property, or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right
of redemption in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
INDIVIDUAL
VIRGINIA:
IN THE FAIRFAX CIRCUIT COURT
CASE #: CL-2012-04426
WANDA MARIE WILLIAMS, COMPLAINANT
VS
WILLIAM MATTHEW FLOYD, JR, DEFENDANT
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
The reason for this cause is to obtain a divorce. An
affidavit having been made and filed showing that
the Defendant in the above-entitled cause is; cannot
be found, and that diligence has been used without
effect to ascertain the location of of the party to be
served; and the last known mailing address of the
Defendant is as follows: William Matthew Floyd, Jr
5990 Richmond Highway #1104 Alexandria, VA
22303. Upon consideration, this Order of Publication
is granted, and it is ORDERED the the above named
Defendant shall appear here on or before the 10th
day of May, 2012 after proper publication of this Order,
to protect his/her interest in this cause. Entered:
March 21, 2012. TESTE: JOHN T. FREY,
CLERK, BY: /s/ Deisy M. Estevez, DEPUTY CLERK.
/s/ Kales 4000 Legato Road Suite 1100 Fairfax, VA
22033.
Dates of Publication:
April 02, 09, 16, 23, 2012
MISCELLANEOUS
VIRGINIA:
IN THE FAIRFAX CIRCUIT COURT
CASE #: CL-2012-03808
Benjamin Sotelo, COMPLAINANT
VS
Nadia Potvin, DEFENDANT
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
The reason for this cause is to construe the Will of
Mary Paule Clark. An affidavit having been made and
filed showing that the Defendant in the above-entitled
cause is a non-resident individual, other than a
non-resident individual fiduciary who has appointed
a statutory agent; and the last known mailing address
of the Defendant is as follows: 95 Rue de la
Pointe-Aux-Lievres, #437B Quebec City, Quebec,
Canada G1K 5Y6. Upon consideration, this Order of
Publication is granted, and it is ORDERED the the
above named Defendant shall appear here on or before
the 3rd day of May, 2012 after proper publication
of this Order, to protect his/her interest in this
cause. Entered: March 14, 2012. TESTE: JOHN T.
FREY, CLERK, BY: /s/ Deisy M. Estevez, DEPUTY
CLERK. /s/ Karl Boring, Boring & Pilger, P.C. 307
Maple Avenue West, Vienna, VA 22180 (703) 281-
2161.
Dates of Publication:
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
VIRGINIA:
IN THE FAIRFAX CIRCUIT COURT
CASE #: CL-2012-03808
Benjamin Sotelo, COMPLAINANT
VS
Helene Ruel, DEFENDANT
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
The reason for this cause is to construe the Will of
Mary Paule Clark. An affidavit having been made and
filed showing that the Defendant in the above-entitled
cause is a non-resident individual, other than a
non-resident individual fiduciary who has appointed
a statutory agent; and the last known mailing address
of the Defendant is as follows: 5139 Ave Royal,
Boischatel, Quebec Canada G0A 1H0. Upon consideration,
this Order of Publication is granted, and
it is ORDERED the the above named Defendant shall
appear here on or before the 3rd day of May, 2012
after proper publication of this Order, to protect his/
her interest in this cause. Entered: March 14, 2012.
TESTE: JOHN T. FREY, CLERK, BY: /s/ Deisy M. Estevez,
DEPUTY CLERK. /s/ Karl Boring, Boring & Pilger,
P.C. 307 Maple Avenue West, Vienna, VA 22180
(703) 281-2161.
Dates of Publication:
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
VIRGINIA:
IN THE FAIRFAX CIRCUIT COURT
CASE #: CL-2012-03808
Benjamin Sotelo, COMPLAINANT
VS
Suzanne R. Bedard, DEFENDANT
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
The reason for this cause is to construe the Will of
Mary Paule Clark. An affidavit having been made and
filed showing that the Defendant in the above-entitled
cause is a non-resident individual, other than a
non-resident individual fiduciary who has appointed
a statutory agent; and the last known mailing address
of the Defendant is as follows: 2501 Ave Bardy,
#104, Quebec City, Quebec Canada G1J 4T5.
Upon consideration, this Order of Publication is
granted, and it is ORDERED the the above named Defendant
shall appear here on or before the 3rd day
of May, 2012 after proper publication of this Order,
to protect his/her interest in this cause. Entered:
March 14, 2012. TESTE: JOHN T. FREY, CLERK, BY:
/s/ Deisy M. Estevez, DEPUTY CLERK. /s/ Karl Boring,
Boring & Pilger, P.C. 307 Maple Avenue West,
Vienna, VA 22180 (703) 281-2161.
Dates of Publication:
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
VIRGINIA:
IN THE FAIRFAX CIRCUIT COURT
CASE #: CL-2012-03808
Benjamin Sotelo, COMPLAINANT
VS
Diane Ruel, DEFENDANT
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
The reason for this cause is to construe the Will of
Mary Paule Clark. An affidavit having been made and
filed showing that the Defendant in the above-entitled
cause is a non-resident individual, other than a
non-resident individual fiduciary who has appointed
a statutory agent; and the last known mailing address
of the Defendant is as follows: 1243 De Fronsac,
Quebec City, Quebec Canada G3E 1V4. Upon
consideration, this Order of Publication is granted,
and it is ORDERED the the above named Defendant
shall appear here on or before the 3rd day of May,
2012 after proper publication of this Order, to protect
his/her interest in this cause. Entered: March
14, 2012. TESTE: JOHN T. FREY, CLERK, BY: /s/
Deisy M. Estevez, DEPUTY CLERK. /s/ Karl Boring,
Boring & Pilger, P.C. 307 Maple Avenue West, Vienna,
VA 22180 (703) 281-2161.
Dates of Publication:
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
VIRGINIA:
IN THE FAIRFAX CIRCUIT COURT
CASE #: CL-2012-03808
Benjamin Sotelo, COMPLAINANT
VS
Rita M. Ruel, DEFENDANT
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
The reason for this cause is to construe the Will of
Mary Paule Clark. An affidavit having been made and
filed showing that the Defendant in the above-entitled
cause is a non-resident individual, other than a
non-resident individual fiduciary who has appointed
a statutory agent; and the last known mailing address
of the Defendant is as follows: P.O. Box 625
Churchton, Maryland 20733. Upon consideration,
this Order of Publication is granted, and it is OR-
DERED the the above named Defendant shall appear
here on or before the 3rd day of May, 2012 after
proper publication of this Order, to protect his/her
interest in this cause. Entered: March 14, 2012.
TESTE: JOHN T. FREY, CLERK, BY: /s/ Deisy M. Estevez,
DEPUTY CLERK. /s/ Karl Boring, Boring & Pilger,
P.C. 307 Maple Avenue West, Vienna, VA 22180
(703) 281-2161.
Dates of Publication:
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
VIRGINIA:
IN THE FAIRFAX CIRCUIT COURT
CASE #: CL-2012-03808
Benjamin Sotelo, COMPLAINANT
VS
Brian Joseph Ruel, DEFENDANT
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
The reason for this cause is to construe the Will of
Mary Paule Clark. An affidavit having been made and
filed showing that the Defendant in the above-entitled
cause is a non-resident individual, other than a
non-resident individual fiduciary who has appointed
a statutory agent; and the last known mailing address
of the Defendant is as follows: 3617 Little
Neck Drive Edgewater, Maryland 21037. Upon consideration,
this Order of Publication is granted, and
it is ORDERED the the above named Defendant shall
appear here on or before the 3rd day of May, 2012
after proper publication of this Order, to protect his/
her interest in this cause. Entered: March 14, 2012.
TESTE: JOHN T. FREY, CLERK, BY: /s/ Deisy M. Estevez,
DEPUTY CLERK. /s/ Karl Boring, Boring & Pilger,
P.C. 307 Maple Avenue West, Vienna, VA 22180
(703) 281-2161.
Dates of Publication:
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
VIRGINIA:
IN THE FAIRFAX CIRCUIT COURT
CASE #: CL-2012-03808
Benjamin Sotelo, COMPLAINANT
VS
Karen A. Rotolone, DEFENDANT
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
The reason for this cause is to construe the Will of
Mary Paule Clark. An affidavit having been made and
filed showing that the Defendant in the above-entitled
cause is a non-resident individual, other than a
non-resident individual fiduciary who has appointed
a statutory agent; and the last known mailing address
of the Defendant is as follows: 204 Oakwood
Road Edgewater, Maryland 21037. Upon consideration,
this Order of Publication is granted, and it is
ORDERED the the above named Defendant shall appear
here on or before the 3rd day of May, 2012 after
proper publication of this Order, to protect his/
her interest in this cause. Entered: March 14, 2012.
TESTE: JOHN T. FREY, CLERK, BY: /s/ Deisy M. Estevez,
DEPUTY CLERK. /s/ Karl Boring, Boring & Pilger,
P.C. 307 Maple Avenue West, Vienna, VA 22180
(703) 281-2161.
Dates of Publication:
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
VIRGINIA:
IN THE FAIRFAX CIRCUIT COURT
CASE #: CL-2012-03808
Benjamin Sotelo, COMPLAINANT
VS
Thomas M. Ruel, DEFENDANT
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
The reason for this cause is to construe the Will of
Mary Paule Clark. An affidavit having been made and
filed showing that the Defendant in the above-entitled
cause is a non-resident individual, other than a
non-resident individual fiduciary who has appointed
a statutory agent; and the last known mailing address
of the Defendant is as follows: 1915 Towne
Center Blvd., #208, Annapolis, Maryland 21401.
Upon consideration, this Order of Publication is
granted, and it is ORDERED the the above named Defendant
shall appear here on or before the 3rd day
of May, 2012 after proper publication of this Order,
to protect his/her interest in this cause. Entered:
March 14, 2012. TESTE: JOHN T. FREY, CLERK, BY:
/s/ Deisy M. Estevez, DEPUTY CLERK. /s/ Karl Boring,
Boring & Pilger, P.C. 307 Maple Avenue West,
Vienna, VA 22180 (703) 281-2161.
Dates of Publication:
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
VIRGINIA:
IN THE FAIRFAX CIRCUIT COURT
CASE #: CL-2012-03808
Benjamin Sotelo, COMPLAINANT
VS
Michele Hopkins, DEFENDANT
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
The reason for this cause is to construe the Will of
Mary Paule Clark. An affidavit having been made and
filed showing that the Defendant in the above-entitled
cause is a non-resident individual, other than a
non-resident individual fiduciary who has appointed
a statutory agent; and the last known mailing address
of the Defendant is as follows: 4180 Sands
Road Harwood, Maryland 20776. Upon consideration,
this Order of Publication is granted, and it is
ORDERED the the above named Defendant shall appear
here on or before the 3rd day of May, 2012 after
proper publication of this Order, to protect his/
her interest in this cause. Entered: March 14, 2012.
TESTE: JOHN T. FREY, CLERK, BY: /s/ Deisy M. Estevez,
DEPUTY CLERK. /s/ Karl Boring, Boring & Pilger,
P.C. 307 Maple Avenue West, Vienna, VA 22180
(703) 281-2161.
Dates of Publication:
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
VIRGINIA:
IN THE FAIRFAX CIRCUIT COURT
CASE #: CL-2012-03808
Benjamin Sotelo, COMPLAINANT
VS
David Louis Ruel, Jr, DEFENDANT
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
The reason for this cause is to construe the Will of
Mary Paule Clark. An affidavit having been made and
filed showing that the Defendant in the above-entitled
cause is a non-resident individual, other than a
non-resident individual fiduciary who has appointed
a statutory agent; and the last known mailing address
of the Defendant is as follows: 10 Bella Vista
Drive Owings, Maryland 20736. Upon consideration,
this Order of Publication is granted, and it is OR-
DERED the the above named Defendant shall appear
here on or before the 3rd day of May, 2012 after
proper publication of this Order, to protect his/her
interest in this cause. Entered: March 14, 2012.
TESTE: JOHN T. FREY, CLERK, BY: /s/ Deisy M. Estevez,
DEPUTY CLERK. /s/ Karl Boring, Boring & Pilger,
P.C. 307 Maple Avenue West, Vienna, VA 22180
(703) 281-2161.
Dates of Publication:
April 02, 09, 16, 2012
SECOND INSERTIONS
PROBATE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 216
ELIZABETH B. SUYDAN
Decedent
Edward G. Varrone, Esq.
910 17th Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Valita F. Barbour, whose address is 313 Anacostia
Road, S.E., Apartment 102, Washington, D.C. 20019,
was appointed Personal Representative of the estate
of:
Elizabeth B. Suydan
who died on November 22, 2011 without a will, and
will serve without Court supervision. All unknown
heirs and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown
shall enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment shall be filed with the
Register of Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, NW, 3rd
Floor, Washington, D.C. 20001, on or before September
26, 2012. Claims against the decedent shall be
presented to the undersigned with a copy to the
Register of Wills or filed with the Register of Wills
with a copy to the undersigned, on or before September
26, 2012, or be forever barred. Persons believed
to be heirs or legatees of the decedent who
do not receive a copy of this notice by mail within 25
days of its first publication shall so inform the Register
of Wills, including name, address and relationship.
/s/ Valita F. Barbour,
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
March 26, April 02, 09, 2012
Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Probate Division
2012 ADM 119
ROSE ANGELA CHACONAS
Decedent
Edward S. Marin, Esq.
1445 Research Boulevard, Suite 301
Rockville, MD 20850
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Edward S. Marin, whose address is 1901 Research
Boulevard, Suite 400, Rockville, MD 20850 was appointed
Personal Representative of the estate of:
Rose Angela Chaconas
who died on January 22, 2012 with a will and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills,
D.C., 515 5th Street, NW, 3rd Floor, Washington, D.
C. 20001, on or before September 26, 2012. Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before September 26, 2012, or be
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Edward S. Marin
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
March 26, April 02, 09, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 224
ALFONSO GOMEZ-LOBO
Decedent
Maria A. Stamoulas
1025 Connecticut Avenue NW, #1000
Washington, DC 20036
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Veronica Gomez-Lobo, whose address is 3210 45th
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20016, was appointed
Personal Representative of the estate of:
Alfonso Gomez-Lobo
who died on December 31, 2011 with a will, and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall
enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s
Will) shall be filed with the Register of
Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington,
D.C. 20001, on or before September 26,
2012. Claims against the decedent shall be presented
to the undersigned with a copy to the Register of
Wills or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy
to the undersigned, on or before September 26,
2012, or be forever barred. Persons believed to be
heirs or legatees of the decedent who do not receive
a copy of this notice by mail within 25 days of
its first publication shall so inform the Register of
Wills, including name, address and relationship.
/s/ Veronica Gomez-Lobo
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
March 26, April 02, 09, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 113
SUSAN GATES NORMAND
Decedent
John M. Lynham, Jr.
Foley & Lardner LLP
3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20007
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Jay W. Freedman, whose address is 7221 Hidden
Creek Rd, Bethesda, MD 20817, were appointed Personal
Representative of the estate of:
Susan Gates Normand
who died on January 04, 2012 without a will, and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment shall be filed with the Register
of Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington,
D.C. 20001, on or before September 26,
2012. Claims against the decedent shall be presented
to the undersigned with a copy to the Register of
Wills or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy
to the undersigned, on or before September 26,
2012, or be forever barred. Persons believed to be
heirs or legatees of the decedent who do not receive
a copy of this notice by mail within 25 days of its first
publication shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Jay W. Freedman
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication:
March 26 April 02, 09, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 234
RENEE N. BUTLER
a/k/a
RENEE NATALIE BUTLER
Decedent
Barbara Davis Solomon, Esq.
910 17th Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Danielle L. Rollins and Brandon M. Butler, whose addresses
are 2622 Jasper Street, SE, #5, Washington,
DC 20020 and 523 Place, NE, Washington, DC
20002, was appointed personal representative of
the estate of:
Renee N. Butler
a/k/a
Renee Natalie Butler
who died on December 22, 2011 with a will, and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills,
D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.
C. 20001, on or before September 26, 2012 Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before September 26, 2012 or be
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of

the . national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ April 2, 2012 April 2, 2012 51
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Danielle L. Rollins
/s/ Brandon M. Butler
Personal Representatives
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
March 26, April 02, 09, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 FEP 28
October 18, 2008
Date of Death
MICHAEL PETER WARD
Decedent
Notice of Appointment of Foreign Personal
Representative and Notice to Creditors
Rosemary Irene Ward and Andew Christopher
Ward, whose addresses are Talei, 2A Waddelow
Road, Waterbeach, Cambridge CB25 9LA, United
Kingdom, and 17 Crescent Way, Brockley, London,
SE4 1QL, United Kingdom were appointed personal
representatives of the estate of:
Michael Peter Ward
deceased, by the High Court of Justice District Probate
Registry at Ipswich, United Kingdom, on July
11, 2011. Service of process may be made upon Barbara
R. Miller, 1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite
800, Washington, DC 20036, whose designation as
District of Columbia agent has been filed with the
Register of Wills, D.C. The decedent owned District
of Columbia personal property. The decedent owned
District of Columbia personal property. Claims
against the decedent may be presented to the undersigned
and filed with the Register of Wills for the
District of Columbia, 515 5th Street, 3rd Floor, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20001, within 6 months from the
date of first publication of this notice.
/s/ Rosemary Irene Ward, Personal Representative
/s/ Andrew Christopher Ward, Personal
Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
March 29, April 02, 09, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 FEP 29
October 01, 2009
Date of Death
DAVID ISRAEL SHAPIRO
Decedent
Notice of Appointment of Foreign Personal
Representative and Notice to Creditors
Anthony D. Shapiro, whose address is 1918 Eighth
Aveune, STE 3300, Seattle, WA 98101 was appointed
personal representative of the estate of:
David Israel Shapiro
deceased, by the High Court of Justice for the District
Probate, REGISTY AT WINCHESTER, LONDON,
ENGLAND on December 21, 2009. Service of process
may be made upon Sarah Dwyer-Heidkamp of 649 C
Street, SE, #203, Washington, DC 20003, whose
designation as District of Columbia agent has been
filed with the Register of Wills, D.C. The decedent
owned the following District of Columbia real property:
THE WESTCHESTER, 3900-4000 CATHDRAL AV-
ENUE NW, BLDG, B, UNIT 532/533B, Washington,
DC. The decedent owned District of Columbia personal
property. Claims against the decedent may be
presented to the undersigned and filed with the Register
of Wills for the District of Columbia, 515 5th
Street, 3rd Floor, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001,
within 6 months from the date of first publication of
this notice.
/s/ Anthony D. Shapiro, Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
March 26, April 02, 09, 2012
TAX LIEN/FORECLOSURE
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 001583 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
MORTMAIN, LLC
4530 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
vs.
CATHERINE A. STODDARD 1301 20th Street NW,
Unit #702 Washington, DC 20036, ROY L. KAUF-
MANN, TRUSTEE 1120 20th Street, NW, Suite S-300
Washington, DC 20036, PROSPERITY MORTGAGE
COMPANY P.O. Box 11701 Newark, Nj 07101, And
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Serve: Mayor of the
District of Columbia, Vincent Gray, Attn: Office of the
Secretary, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., #419,
Washington, DC 20001, Serve: Attorney General of
the District of Columbia, Attn: Darlene Fields, 441
4th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001, And All Unknown
Owners of the Property described below,
their Heirs, Personal Representatives, Executors,
Administrators, Grantees, Assigns or Successors in
Right, Title, Interest, and Any and all persons having
or claiming to have any interest in the leasehold or
fee simple in the property and premises situate, lying
and being in the District of Columbia described
as: Square 0115, Lot 2213. May also be known as
1301 20th Street, NW, Unit P-45, Washington, DC
20036.
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 0115, Lot 2213
which may also be known as 1301 20th Street, NW,
Unit P-45, Washington, DC 20036. The complaint
states, among other things, that the amounts necessary
for redemption have not been paid. Pursuant to
the Chief Judge's Administrative Order Number 02-
11, it is this 16th day of February, 2012, ORDERED by
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, that
notice be given by the insertion of a copy of this Order
in the National Law Journal, a newspaper of
general circulation in the District of Columbia, once
a week for three (3) successive weeks, notifying all
persons interested in the Real Property described
above to appear in this Court by the 15th day of August,
2012, and redeem the Real Property by payment
of $1,050.85 together with interest from the
date the Real Property tax certificate was purchased;
court costs and attorney's fees; expenses
incurred in the publication and service of process by
publication and for reasonable fees for the title
search; all other amounts paid by the petitioner in
accordance with the provisions of D. C. Code §47-
1361 and all outstanding municipal lien amounts due
and owing on the aforementioned Real Property, or
answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a final judgment
will be entered foreclosing the right of redemption
in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
March 26 April 02, 09, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 001580 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
MORTMAIN, LLC
4530 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
vs.
ROBERTA A. SCHROCK 1601 18th Street, NW, #915
Washington, DC 20009, And JOHN D. SCHROCK 29
Jackson Road Gettysburg, PA 17325, And LAURENCE
LEVITAN, TRUSTEE Address Unknown, And RESI-
DENTIAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION 1445 Valley
Road Wayne, NJ 07470, And PENNY MARTIN, TRUS-
TEE 1775 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC
20006, And CITIBANK, F.S.B 11800 Spectrum Center
Drive Reston, VA 22090, ARNOLD D. SPEVACK,
TRUSTEE 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington,
DC 20036, And CITIBANK, N.A. 3900 Paradise Road,
Suite 127 Las Vegas, NV 89109, And MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. P.O.
Box 2026 Flint, MI 48501-2026, And THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, Serve: Mayor of the District of Columbia,
Vincent Gray, Attn: Office of the Secretary,
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., #419, Washington,
DC 20001, Serve: Attorney General of the District
of Columbia, Attn: Darlene Fields, 441 4th
Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001, And All Unknown
Owners of the Property described below,
their Heirs, Personal Representatives, Executors,
Administrators, Grantees, Assigns or Successors in
Right, Title, Interest, and Any and all persons having
or claiming to have any interest in the leasehold or
fee simple in the property and premises situate, lying
and being in the District of Columbia described
as: Square 0115, Lot 2265. May also be known as
1601 18th Street, NW, Unit 915, Washington, DC
20009.
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 0115, Lot 2265
which may also be known as 1601 18th Street, NW,
Unit 915, Washington, DC 20009. The complaint
states, among other things, that the amounts necessary
for redemption have not been paid. Pursuant to
the Chief Judge's Administrative Order Number 02-
11, it is this 15th day of February, 2012, ORDERED by
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, that
notice be given by the insertion of a copy of this Order
in the National Law Journal, a newspaper of
general circulation in the District of Columbia, once
a week for three (3) successive weeks, notifying all
persons interested in the Real Property described
above to appear in this Court by the 15th day of August,
2012, and redeem the Real Property by payment
of $1,537.00 together with interest from the
date the Real Property tax certificate was purchased;
court costs and attorney's fees; expenses
incurred in the publication and service of process by
publication and for reasonable fees for the title
search; all other amounts paid by the petitioner in
accordance with the provisions of D. C. Code §47-
1361 and all outstanding municipal lien amounts due
and owing on the aforementioned Real Property, or
answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a final judgment
will be entered foreclosing the right of redemption
in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
March 26 April 02, 09, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 001578 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
MORTMAIN, LLC
4530 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
vs.
MERIDIAN REAL ESTATE, LLC c/o James A. Towns,
Registered Agent 803 Florida Avenue, NW Washington,
DC 20001, And SIDNEY S. FRIEDMAN, SUBSTI-
TUTE TRUSTEE, 4 Reservoir Circle Baltimore, MD
21206-7301, And JEFFREY M. LIPPMAN, SUBSTI-
TUTE TRUSTEE 4 Reservoir Cirlce Baltimore, MD
21206-7301, And MARC E. SHACH, SUBSTITUTE
TRUSTEE 4 Reservoir Circle Baltimore, MD 21206-
7301, And PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Fleming Building 800 17th Street, NW Washington,
DC 20006, DAVID FISHER, SUBTITUTE TRUSTEE c/o
DC Office of Attorney General 441 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001, And OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
MAYOR FOR PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOP-
MENT c/o DC Office of Attorney General 441 4th
Street, NW Washington, DC 20001, And LOFTS AT
BRIGHTWOOD UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION 5832
Georgia Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20011, And
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Serve: Mayor of the
District of Columbia, Vincent Gray, Attn: Office of the
Secretary, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., #419,
Washington, DC 20001, Serve: Attorney General of
the District of Columbia, Attn: Darlene Fields, 441
4th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001, And All Unknown
Owners of the Property described below,
their Heirs, Personal Representatives, Executors,
Administrators, Grantees, Assigns or Successors in
Right, Title, Interest, and Any and all persons having
or claiming to have any interest in the leasehold or
fee simple in the property and premises situate, lying
and being in the District of Columbia described
as: Square 2937, Lot 2052. May also be known as
5832 Georgia Avenue, NW, Parking Unit P-20C,
Washington, DC 20011.
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 2937, Lot 2052
which may also be known as 5832 Georgia Avenue,
NW, Parking Unit P-20C, Washington, DC 20011. The
complaint states, among other things, that the
amounts necessary for redemption have not been
paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administrative
Order Number 02-11, it is this 15th day of February,
2012, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion of
a copy of this Order in the National Law Journal, a
newspaper of general circulation in the District of
Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the Real
Property described above to appear in this Court by
the 15th day of August, 2012, and redeem the Real
Property by payment of $952.25 together with interest
from the date the Real Property tax certificate
was purchased; court costs and attorney's fees; expenses
incurred in the publication and service of
process by publication and for reasonable fees for
the title search; all other amounts paid by the petitioner
in accordance with the provisions of D. C.
Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real
Property, or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right
of redemption in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
March 26 April 02, 09, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 001584 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
MORTMAIN, LLC
4530 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
vs.
ELISELDA BURGOS 1702 Summit Place NW Washington,
DC 20009, And MICHAEL P. BENTZEN, ES-
QUIRE TRUSTEE 1667 K Street, NW, Suite 520
Washington, DC 20006, And FIRST HORIZON HOME
LOAN CORPORATION 4000 Horizon Way Irving, TX
75063, And MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTATION
SYSTEMS, INC P.O. Box 2026 Flint, MI 48501-2026,
And THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Serve: Mayor of
the District of Columbia, Vincent Gray, Attn: Office of
the Secretary, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
#419, Washington, DC 20001, Serve: Attorney General
of the District of Columbia, Attn: Darlene Fields,
441 4th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001, And All
Unknown Owners of the Property described below,
their Heirs, Personal Representatives, Executors,
Administrators, Grantees, Assigns or Successors in
Right, Title, Interest, and Any and all persons having
or claiming to have any interest in the leasehold or
fee simple in the property and premises situate, lying
and being in the District of Columbia described
as: Square 2794, Lot 2045. May also be known as
1322 Missouri Avenue, NW, P-13(Parking Space 13),
Washington, DC 20011.
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 2794, Lot 2045
which may also be known as 1322 Missouri Avenue,
NW, P-13 (Parking Space 13), Washington, DC
20011. The complaint states, among other things,
that the amounts necessary for redemption have not
been paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administrative
Order Number 02-11, it is this 16th day of February,
2012, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion
of a copy of this Order in the National Law
Journal, a newspaper of general circulation in the
District of Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive
weeks, notifying all persons interested in
the Real Property described above to appear in this
Court by the 15th day of August, 2012, and redeem
the Real Property by payment of $945.98 together
with interest from the date the Real Property tax
certificate was purchased; court costs and attorney's
fees; expenses incurred in the publication and
service of process by publication and for reasonable
fees for the title search; all other amounts paid by
the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of D.
C. Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real
Property, or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right
of redemption in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
March 26 April 02, 09, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 001582 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
MORTMAIN, LLC
4530 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
vs.
SAMIA AL-DUAIJ 1229 12th Street, NW, Unit 203
Washington, DC 20005, And THE DISTRICT OF CO-
LUMBIA, Serve: Mayor of the District of Columbia,
Vincent Gray, Attn: Office of the Secretary, 1350
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., #419, Washington, DC
20001, Serve: Attorney General of the District of Columbia,
Attn: Darlene Fields, 441 4th Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20001, And All Unknown Owners of
the Property described below, their Heirs, Personal
Representatives, Executors, Administrators, Grantees,
Assigns or Successors in Right, Title, Interest,
and Any and all persons having or claiming to have
any interest in the leasehold or fee simple in the
property and premises situate, lying and being in the
District of Columbia described as: Square 0314, Lot
2044. May also be known as 1229 12th Street, NW,
Parking Unit P-5, Washington, DC 20005.
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 0314, Lot 2044
which may also be known as 1229 12th Street, NW,
Parking Unit P-5, Washington, DC 20005. The complaint
states, among other things, that the amounts
necessary for redemption have not been paid. Pursuant
to the Chief Judge's Administrative Order
Number 02-11, it is this 16th day of February, 2012,
ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia,
that notice be given by the insertion of a
copy of this Order in the National Law Journal, a
newspaper of general circulation in the District of
Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the Real
Property described above to appear in this Court by
the 15th day of August, 2012, and redeem the Real
Property by payment of $959.72 together with interest
from the date the Real Property tax certificate
was purchased; court costs and attorney's fees; expenses
incurred in the publication and service of
process by publication and for reasonable fees for
the title search; all other amounts paid by the petitioner
in accordance with the provisions of D. C.
Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real
Property, or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right
of redemption in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
March 26 April 02, 09, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2011 CA 009408 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
MORTMAIN, LLC
4530 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
vs.
ROBERT LINTZ 15954 Derwood Road Rockville, MD
20855, And MANOR VIEW II CONDOMINIUM UNIT
OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC c/o Resagent, Inc.,
Registered Agent 1025 Connecticut Avenue NW
Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036, And THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, Serve: Mayor of the District of Columbia,
Vincent Gray, Attn: Office of the Secretary,
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., #419, Washington,
DC 20001, Serve: Attorney General of the District
of Columbia, Attn: Darlene Fields, 441 4th
Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001, And All Unknown
Owners of the Property described below,
their Heirs, Personal Representatives, Executors,
Administrators, Grantees, Assigns or Successors in
Right, Title, Interest, and Any and all persons having
or claiming to have any interest in the leasehold or
fee simple in the property and premises situate, lying
and being in the District of Columbia described
as: Square 5925, Lot 2127. May also be known as
3876 9th Street, SE, Unit 302, Washington, DC
20032.
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 5925, Lot 2127
which may also be known as 3876 9th Street, SE,Unit
302, Washington, DC 20032. The complaint states,
among other things, that the amounts necessary for
redemption have not been paid. Pursuant to the
Chief Judge's Administrative Order Number 02-11, it
is this 22nd day of November, 2011, ORDERED by the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia, that notice
be given by the insertion of a copy of this Order
in the National Law Journal, a newspaper of general
circulation in the District of Columbia, once a week
for three (3) successive weeks, notifying all persons
interested in the Real Property described above to
appear in this Court by the 2nd day of May, 2012,
and redeem the Real Property by payment of
$1,870.61 together with interest from the date the
Real Property tax certificate was purchased; court
costs and attorney's fees; expenses incurred in the
publication and service of process by publication and
for reasonable fees for the title search; all other
amounts paid by the petitioner in accordance with
the provisions of D. C. Code §47-1361 and all outstanding
municipal lien amounts due and owing on
the aforementioned Real Property, or answer the
complaint, or, thereafter, a final judgment will be entered
foreclosing the right of redemption in the Real
Property and vesting in the Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
March 26 April 02, 09, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 0001753-12 (RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar # 18
Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
YIMIN WANG
53 E Broadway, 1st Floor
Bel Air, MD 21014
Plaintiff
vs.
JACK MASSENGALE, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
and All unknown owners of the property described
below, the unknown owner’s heirs, devisees, personal
representatives, executors, administrators,
grantees, assigns, or successors in right, title and
interest and their or any of their heirs, devisees,
personal representatives, executors, administrators,
grantees, assigns, or successors in right,title
and interest that have, or claim to have, any interest
in the leasehold or fee simple interest in the property
and premises situate, lying and being in the District
of Columbia described as: Assessment Address:
1901 16th St, NW Unit 101 Washington, DC
20009 Square/Lot: 0190/2034 Assessed Owner:
Jack C. Massengale
* * * * * * * * * * * *
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
ACTION INVOLVING REAL PROPERTY
In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the

52 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ April 2, 2, 2012
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff in
this action described as: Assessment Address: 1901
16th St NW Unit 101 Washington DC 20009 Square/
Lot: 0190/2034 Assessed Owner: Jack C. Massengale.
The complaint states, among other things, that
the amounts necessary for redemption have not
been paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administration
Order Number 02-11, it is this 22nd day of February,
2011, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion
of a copy of this Order in the National Law
Journal, having a general circulation in the District
of Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the Real
Property described above to appear in this Court by
the 29th day of August, 2012, and redeem the Real
Property by payment of $2,409.68, together with interest
from the date the Real Property tax certificate
was purchased; court costs and attorney's fees; expenses
incurred in the publication and service of
process by publication and for reasonable fees for
the title search; all other amounts paid by the petitioner
in accordance with the provisions of D.C. Code
§47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien amounts
due and owing on the aforementioned Real Property,
or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a final judgment
will be entered foreclosing the right of redemption
in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple.
/s/ Duane B. Delaney
Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
March 26, April 02, 09, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No.0002238-12
CAPITAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
4629 BLAGDEN TERRACE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20011
Plaintiff
vs.
HILDA L. WOODFORD 1229 W STREET, NW WASH-
INGTON, DC 20009, And THE HONORABLE MAYOR
VINCENT C. GRAY, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUM-
BIA SERVED ON: TABITHA BRAXTON 1350 PENNSYL-
VANIA AVE., NW WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004, Also
Served on: D.C. GOVERNMENT CORPORATION
COUNSEL DARLENE FIELDS, 441-4th STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001, And All persons or entities
having an interest, whether an ownership,
leasehold or claim located in the District of Columbia
either known as or identified as Square 0271, Lot
0076 for tax purposes and also identified as 1229 W
Street, NW, Washington, DC on the said lot with improvements
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 0271 Lot 0076 for
tax purposes and aslo identified as 1229 W Street,
NW, Washignton, DC on the said lot with improvements.
The complaint states, among other things,
that the amounts necessary for redemption have not
been paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administrative
Order Number 02-11, it is this 6th day of March,
2012, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion of
a copy of this Order in the National Law Journal, a
newspaper of general circulation in the District of
Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the Real
Property described above to appear in this Court by
the 26th day of September, 2012, and redeem the
Real Property by payment of $31,187.68 together
with interest from the date the Real Property tax
certificate was purchased; court costs and attorney's
fees; expenses incurred in the publication and
service of process by publication and for reasonable
fees for the title search; all other amounts paid by
the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of D.
C. Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real
Property, or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right
of redemption in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
March 26, April 02, 09, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2011 CA 004755 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar # 18
Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
YIMIN WANG
53 E Broadway, 1st Floor
Bel Air, MD 21014
Plaintiff
vs.
2250 11th STREET HOLDINGS, LLC, and ATS-1 CORP.
a/k/a ATS ONE HOLDING CORP, and AMY HURTIE
MACDONALD, TRUSTEE, and ERIKA S. TUCKER,
TRUSTEE, ROBERT E. GLENN, TRUSTEE, and BUILD-
ERS BANK, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and All unknown
owners of the property described below, the
unknown owner’s heirs, devisees, personal representatives,
executors, administrators, grantees, assigns,
or successors in right, title and interest and
their or any of their heirs, devisees, personal representatives,
executors, administrators, grantees, assigns,
or successors in right,title and interest that
have, or claim to have, any interest in the leasehold
or fee simple interest in the property and premises
situate, lying and being in the District of Columbia
described as: Assessment Address: 2250 11th St.
NW, Unit 107 Square/Lot: 0302/2031 Assessed
Owner: 2250 11th Street Holdings LLC
* * * * * * * * * * * *
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
ACTION INVOLVING REAL PROPERTY
In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff in
this action described as: Assessment Address: 2250
11th St., NW, Unit 107 Washington, DC 20009
Square/Lot: 0302/2031 Assessed Owner: 2250 11th
Street Holdings LLC. The complaint states, among
other things, that the amounts necessary for redemption
have not been paid. Pursuant to the Chief
Judge's Administration Order Number 02-11, it is
this 22nd day of February, 2011, ORDERED by the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia, that notice
be given by the insertion of a copy of this Order
in the National Law Journal, having a general circulation
in the District of Columbia, once a week for
three (3) successive weeks, notifying all persons interested
in the Real Property described above to appear
in this Court by the 29th day of August, 2012,
and redeem the Real Property by payment of
$2,594.42, together with interest from the date the
Real Property tax certificate was purchased; court
costs and attorney's fees; expenses incurred in the
publication and service of process by publication and
for reasonable fees for the title search; all other
amounts paid by the petitioner in accordance with
the provisions of D.C. Code §47-1361 and all outstanding
municipal lien amounts due and owing on
the aforementioned Real Property, or answer the
complaint, or, thereafter, a final judgment will be entered
foreclosing the right of redemption in the Real
Property and vesting in the Plaintiff a title in fee simple.
/s/ Duane B. Delaney
Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
March 26, April 02, 09, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 0001747-12 (RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar # 18
Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
YIMIN WANG
53 E Broadway, 1st Floor
Bel Air, MD 21014
Plaintiff
vs.
DAVID LUCZYNSKI, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
and All unknown owners of the property described
below, the unknown owner’s heirs, devisees, personal
representatives, executors, administrators,
grantees, assigns, or successors in right, title and
interest and their or any of their heirs, devisees,
personal representatives, executors, administrators,
grantees, assigns, or successors in right,title
and interest that have, or claim to have, any interest
in the leasehold or fee simple interest in the property
and premises situate, lying and being in the District
of Columbia described as: Assessment Address:
1211 13th St NW Washington DC 20005
Square/Lot: 0281/2315 Assessed Owner: David Luczynski
* * * * * * * * * * * *
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
ACTION INVOLVING REAL PROPERTY
In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff in
this action described as: Assessment Address: 1211
13th St, NW Washington, DC 20005 Square/Lot:
0281-2315 Assessed Owner: David Luczynski. The
complaint states, among other things, that the
amounts necessary for redemption have not been
paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administration
Order Number 02-11, it is this 22nd day of February,
2011, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion of
a copy of this Order in the National Law Journal,
having a general circulation in the District of Columbia,
once a week for three (3) successive weeks, notifying
all persons interested in the Real Property
described above to appear in this Court by the 29th
day of August, 2012, and redeem the Real Property
by payment of $4,363.56, together with interest from
the date the Real Property tax certificate was purchased;
court costs and attorney's fees; expenses
incurred in the publication and service of process by
publication and for reasonable fees for the title
search; all other amounts paid by the petitioner in
accordance with the provisions of D.C. Code §47-
1361 and all outstanding municipal lien amounts due
and owing on the aforementioned Real Property, or
answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a final judgment
will be entered foreclosing the right of redemption
in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple.
/s/ Duane B. Delaney
Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
March 26, April 02, 09, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 0001755-12 (RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar # 18
Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
YIMIN WANG
53 E Broadway, 1st Floor
Bel Air, MD 21014
Plaintiff
vs.
GRETCHEN T. HAU, And GLADYS H. MCNELIS, THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and All unknown owners
of the property described below, the unknown owner’s
heirs, devisees, personal representatives, executors,
administrators, grantees, assigns, or successors
in right, title and interest and their or any of
their heirs, devisees, personal representatives, executors,
administrators, grantees, assigns, or successors
in right,title and interest that have, or claim
to have, any interest in the leasehold or fee simple
interest in the property and premises situate, lying
and being in the District of Columbia described as:
Assessment Address: 2030 F Street, NW, Unit 712
Washington, DC 20006 Square/Lot: 0104/2081 Assessed
Owner: Gretchen T. Hau and Gladys H.
McNelis
* * * * * * * * * * * *
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
ACTION INVOLVING REAL PROPERTY
In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff in
this action described as: Assessment Address: 2030
F Street, NW, Unit 712 Washington DC 20006
Square/Lot: 0104/2081 Assessed Owner: Gretchen
T. Hau and Gladys H. McNelis. The complaint states,
among other things, that the amounts necessary for
redemption have not been paid. Pursuant to the
Chief Judge's Administration Order Number 02-11, it
is this 22nd day of February, 2011, ORDERED by the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia, that notice
be given by the insertion of a copy of this Order
in the National Law Journal, having a general circulation
in the District of Columbia, once a week for
three (3) successive weeks, notifying all persons interested
in the Real Property described above to appear
in this Court by the 29th day of August, 2012,
and redeem the Real Property by payment of
$2,305.21, together with interest from the date the
Real Property tax certificate was purchased; court
costs and attorney's fees; expenses incurred in the
publication and service of process by publication and
for reasonable fees for the title search; all other
amounts paid by the petitioner in accordance with
the provisions of D.C. Code §47-1361 and all outstanding
municipal lien amounts due and owing on
the aforementioned Real Property, or answer the
complaint, or, thereafter, a final judgment will be entered
foreclosing the right of redemption in the Real
Property and vesting in the Plaintiff a title in fee simple.
/s/ Duane B. Delaney
Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
March 26, April 02, 09, 2012
SEIZURES & FORFEITURE
Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 38-203 of the
District of Columbia Statutes, Allstate Lien & Recovery
Corporation of D.C., will sell at public auction the
following vehicles to the highest bidder, with reserve,
to satisfy lien for repair, storage and other
lawful charges, as agent for the undersigned Lienor
on April 13, 2012 at 12:00 Noon, at 1629 K Street,
NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006. Sealed bids
will be accepted. Inspection: 1 week prior at Lienor
Shop. Terms: Cash or Cashier Check + 10% buyer
premium.
LOT: 4000JPDC MIN BID: $9652 MILEAGE:151 K
2003 BMW 745 I
VIN: WBAGL63482DP63739
AA ENTERPRISES LLC
311 K STREET NW WASHINGTON
LOT: 4002JPDC MIN BID: $5368 MILEAGE:
2006 Chevrolet Uplander
VIN: 1GNDV23L86D117239
THE AUTO DOCTOR
4251 MINNESOTA AVE NE WASHINGTON
LOT: 4003JPDC MIN BID: $2605 MILEAGE:
2007 Kia Rondo
VIN: KNAFG526077111795
THE AUTO DOCTOR
4251 MINNESOTA AVE NE WASHINGTON
Lot: 4004JPDC MIN BID: $13980 MILEAGE:
2006 BMW 750 Li
VIN: WBAHN83506DT33629
QUEEN’S AUTO BODY SHOP
4606 MINNESOTA AVE NE WASHINGTON
LOT: 4979JPDC MIN BID: $4122 MILEAGE: 157K
1999 Chevrolet Tahoe K1500
VIN: 1GNEK13R9XJ451472
J&J AUTO SALES
1000 BLADENSBURG ROAD NE WASHINGTON
Lot: 4993JPDC MIN BID:$3073 MILEAGE:25K
1966 Cadillac Sedan Deville
VIN: 68339FWD48791
QUEEN’S AUTO BODY SHOP
4606 MINNESOTA AVENUE NE WASHINGTON
Lot:4995JPDC MIN BID: $6273 MILEAGE 58K
2008 Hyundai Accent
Vin: KMHCN46C98U269816
CAPTIAL CERTIFIED COLLISION CENTER
934 MICHIGAN AVENUE NE WASHINGTON
Lot: 4998JPDC MIN BID- $4682 MILEAGE: 98K
2002 Ford Explorer
Vin: 1FMZU62K22UD32834
S&P AUTO REPAIR
920 GIRARD STREET NE WASHINGTON
LOT: 4999JPDC MIN BID: $3878 MILEAGE: 71K
2002 Mercury Grand Marquis Ls
VIN: 2MEFM75WX2X639235
ASU HOLDINGS LLC
909 FRANKLIN STREET NE WASHINGTON
Dates of Publication
March 26, April 02, 09, 2012
Licensed Auctioneers 1-800-553-1632
INDIVIDUAL
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
CASE NO: 2012- 03614
Sandra M. Suzarez-Teran, COMPLAINANT
vs
Ivo A Pizarro-Loayza, DEFENDANT
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
The reason for this cause is to Obtain a final Decree
of Divorce from Defendent. An affidavit having been
made and filed showing that the Defendant in the
above-entitled cause cannot be found, and that diligence
has been used without effect to ascertain the
location of the party to be served; and the last
known mailing address of the Defendant is as follows:
Ivo A. Pizarro-Loayza 6402 Wingate Street
Alexandria, VA. Upon consideration, this Order of
Publication is granted, and it is ORDERED that the
above named Defendant shall appear here on or before
the 3rd day of May, 2012, after proper publication
of this Order, to protect his/her interest in this
cause. Entered: March 14, 2011. TESTE: JOHN T.
FREY, CLERK. By: /s/ Deisy Esteves, DEPUTY CLERK,
/s/ Emilia Castillo, Esq., 115 Hillwood Avenue, Suite
203, Falls Church, VA 22046, (703) 532-3200.
Dates of Publication:
March 26, April 02, 09, 16, 2012
VIRGINIA:
IN THE FAIRFAX CIRCUIT COURT
Case #: CL-2012-03704
Christopher John Hoppe, COMPLAINANT
VS
Marcia Medina, DEFENDANT
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
The reason for this cause is to obtain a divorce. An
affidavit having been made and filed showing that
the Defendant in the above-entitled cause is nonresident
individual, other than a non-resident individual
fiduciary who has appointed a statutory agen;
and the last known mailing address of the Defendant
is as follows: Marcia Medina 6013 Rock Cliff Lane,
#F Alexandria, Virginia 22305. Upon consideration,
this Order of Publication is granted, and it is OR-
DERED that the above named Defendant shall appear
here on or before the 3rd day of May, 2012 after
proper publication of this Order, to protect his/
her interest in this cause. Entered: March 14, 2012.
TESTE: JOHN T. FREY, CLERK. By: /s/ Deisy M. Estevez,
DEPUTY CLERK, /s/ Michael A. Ward, Counsel
for Complainant, 4805 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 301,
Fairfax, Virginia 22030, (703) 591-7700
Dates of Publication:
March 26, April 02, 09, 16, 2012
SUBSEQUENT INSERTIONS
PROBATE
Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Probate Division
2012 ADM 186
EDDIE CONLEY
Decedent
Eli J. Guiterman, Esq.
2120 L Street, NW, Ste. 700
Washington, DC 20037
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Lisa P. Conley and Albert R. Conley, whose address
is 821 Drum Av., Capitol Heights, MD 20743 was appointed
Personal Representative of the estate of:
Eddie Conley
who died on January 16, 2012 with a Will and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills,
D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.
C. 20001, on or before September 19, 2012. Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before September 19, 2012, or be
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Lisa P. Conley
/s/ Albert R. Conley
Personal Representatives
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
March 19, 26, April 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 185
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
Decedent
Doris Blazek-White
Covington & Burling, LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 903E
Washington, DC 20004
Notice of Appointment, Notice to Creditors,
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Carol Blue & Steve Wasserman, whose addresses
are 2022 Columbia Rd., NW, Washington, DC 20009;
156 Carroll Rd., Fairfield, CT 06824, were appointed
Personal Representatives of the estate of
Christopher Hitchens
who died on December 15, 2011 with a Will and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills,
D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.
C. 20001, on or before September 19, 2012. Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before September 19, 2012, or be
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Carol Blue
/s/ Steve Wasserman
Personal Representatives
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
March 19, 26, April 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OFCOLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 188
LINCEY G. DEAN
Decedent
Raymond L. Gooch
2001 L Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
Notice of Appointment,
Notice to Creditors
and Notice to Unknown Heirs
Gloria V. Clark, Lincey A. Clyburn, and Sharon E. Colbert,
whose addresses are 5310 Wiley St, Riverdale,
MD 20737; 1350 Rittenhouse St., NW, DC 20011, and
15 Buchanan St., NE, DC 20011 were appointed Personal
Representative of the estate of:
Lincey G. Dean
who died on December 31, 2011 with a will, and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall
enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s
Will) shall be filed with the Register of
Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington,
D.C. 20001, on or before September 19,
2012. Claims against the decedent shall be presented
to the undersigned with a copy to the Register of
Wills or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy
to the undersigned, on or before September 19,
2012, or be forever barred. Persons believed to be
heirs or legatees of the decedent who do not receive
a copy of this notice by mail within 25 days of
its first publication shall so inform the Register of
Wills, including name, address and relationship.
/s/ Gloria V. Clark
/s/ Lincey A. Clyburn
/s/ Sharon E. Colbert
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
March 19, 26, April 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION

the . national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ April 2, 2012 April 2, 2012 53
2012 ADM 192
MARIE P. SAUNDERS
Decedent
Cheryl Chapman Henderson, Esq.
4920 Niagara Road, Suite 200
College Park, Maryland 20740
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Diane L. Gray, whose address is 5203 South Dakota
Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20011 was appointed
Personal Representative of the estate of:
Marie P. Saunders
who died on September 20, 2011 with a will, and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall
enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment(or to the probate of decedent’s
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills,
D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.
C. 20001, on or before September 19, 2012. Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before September 19, 2012, or be
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Diane L. Gray
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
March 19, 26 April 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 196
ADAM C. ADAMOWICZ
Decedent
George A. Teitelbaum, Esquire
11141 Georgia Ave., Suite 514
Wheaton, MD 20902
Notice of Appointment, Notice to Creditors,
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Moira Adamowicz, whose address is 141 Esopus
Creek Road, Saugerties, NY 12477 was appointed
Personal Representative of the estate of:
Adam C. Adamowicz
who died on February 08, 2012, without a Will and
will serve without Court supervision. All unknown
heirs and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown
shall enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment (or to probate of decendent’s
Will) shall be filed with the Register of
Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington,
D.C. 20001, on or before September 19,
2012. Claims against the decedent shall be presented
to the undersigned with a copy to the Register of
Wills or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy
to the undersigned, on or before September 19,
2012, or be forever barred. Persons believed to be
heirs or legatees of the decedent who do not receive
a copy of this notice by mail within 25 days of
its first publication shall so inform the Register of
Wills, including name, address and relationship.
/s/ Moira Adamowicz
Personal Representatives
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication:
March 12, 19, 26, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 177
MARY ANNE BEATLEY
Decedent
Kathleen J. Woody
11245 Lockwood Drive
Silver Spring, MD 20901
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Christopher W. Beatley, whose address is 4606
Hartwick Road, College Park, MD 20740 was appointed
Personal Representative of the estate of:
Mary Anne Beatley
who died on January 13, 2012 with a will, and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall
enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment (or to the probate of decendent’s
Will) shall be filed with the Register of
Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington,
D.C. 20001, on or before September 19,
2012. Claims against the decedent shall be presented
to the undersigned with a copy to the Register of
Wills or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy
to the undersigned, on or before September 19,
2012, or be forever barred. Persons believed to be
heirs or legatees of the decedent who do not receive
a copy of this notice by mail within 25 days of
its first publication shall so inform the Register of
Wills, including name, address and relationship.
/s/ Christopher W. Beatly
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
March 19, 26 April 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 197
RUSSELL CLARKE
Decedent
Jerry L. Hunter, Esq
1822 11the Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Elaine Clarke, whose address is 114 47th Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20019 was appointed Personal Representative
of the estate of:
Russell Clarke
who died on December 02, 2010 without a will and
will serve without Court supervision. All unknown
heirs and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown
shall enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment shall be filed with the
Register of Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd
Floor, Washington, DC 20001, on or before September
19, 2012. Claims against the decedent shall be
presented to the undersigned with a copy to the
Register of Wills or filed with the Register of Wills
with a copy to the undersigned, on or before September
19, 2012 or be forever barred. Persons believed
to be heirs or legatees of the decedent who
do not receive a copy of this notice by mail within 25
days of its first publication shall so inform the Register
of Wills, including name, address and relationship.
/s/ Elaine Clarke
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
March 19, 26 April 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 NRT 7
MARIQUITA PAEZ MULLAN
Deceased Settlor
NOTICE OF EXISTENCE OF
REVOCABLE TRUST
Mariquita Paez Mullan, whose address was 2126
Connecticut Avenue, NW, 64, Washington DC 20008
created a revocable trust on February 14, 1997,
which remained in existence on the date of his death
on December 4, 2011, and Fitzhugh S. Mullan, Mariquita
G. Mullan, and Anthony P. Mullan, whose addresses
are 8708 Melwood Road Bethesda, MD
20817 and 3723 Albemarle Street, NW Washington,
DC 20016, and 615 5th Street, NE, Washington DC
20002, are the currently acting trustees, hereinafter
the Trustee. Communications to the trust should be
mailed or directed to Fitzhugh S. Mullan at 8708 Melwood
Road, Bethesda, MD 20817. The Trust is subject
to claims of the deceased settlor's creditors,
costs of administration of the settlor's estate, the
expenses of the deceased settlor's funeral and disposal
of remains, and statutory allowances to a surviving
spouse and children to the extent the deceased
settlor's residuary probate estate is inadequate
to satisfy those claims, costs, expenses, and
allowances. Claims of the deceased settlor's creditors
are barred as against the Trustee and the trust
property unless presented to the Trustee at the address
provided herein on or before September 26,
2012 (6 months after the date of the first publication
of this notice). An action to contest the validity of
this trust must be commenced by the earliest of: (1)
December 04, 2012 (one year from date of death of
deceased settlor) or (2) September 26, 2012 (6
months from the date of first publication of this notice)
or (3) ninety days after the Trustee sends the
person a copy of the trust instrument and a notice
informing the person of the trust's existence, of the
Trustee's name and address, and the time allowed
for commencing a proceeding. The Trustee may proceed
to distribute the trust property in accordance
with the terms of the trust before the expiration of
the time within which an action must be commenced
unless the Trustee knows of a pending judicial proceeding
contesting the validity of the trust or the
Trustee has received notice from a potential contestant
who thereafter commences a judicial proceeding
within sixty days after notification. This Notice
must be mailed postmarked within 15 days of its
first publication to each heir and qualified beneficiary
of the trust and any other person who would be
an interested person within the meaning of D.C.
Code, sec. 20-101(d).
/s/ Fitzhugh S. Mullan, Trustee
/s/ Mariquita G. Mullan, Trustee
/s/ Anthony P. Mullan, Trustee
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
March 19, 26 April 02, 2012
TAX LIEN/FORECLOSURE
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
2005 CA 005703 L(RP)
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
Next Event: May 4, 2011
Status Conference
Alpha Beth Assefa
Plaintiff
v.
Norman Leopold, et al.
Defendants.
ORDER
The object of this action is to foreclose the rights of
redemption in and to the real property described as
Square: 4074, Lot: 0804, located directly adjacent to
1607 Levis Street, N.E., approximatley 80 feet East
of the intersection of 16th Street, N.E. and Levis
Street, N.E., Washington , D.C. On Motion of the
Plaintiff, there being no opposition thereto, it is this
18th day of January, 2012, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
Motion for Service of Process by Publication upon
Defendants Lawrence B. Bookman; the Estate of
Raymond A. Bookman, to include its unknown personal
representatives, heirs, devisees, executors,
administrators, grantees, assigns, or successors in
right title and interest; and the Estate of Rosalind R.
Bookman, to inlcude its unknown personal representatives,
heirs, devisees, executors, administrators,
grantees, assigns, or successors in right title and interest,
is hereby Granted; and it is further ORDERED
that Defendants Lawrence B. Bookman; the Estate of
Raymond A. Bookman, to include its unknown personal
representatives, heirs, devisees, executors,
administrators, grantees, assigns, or successors in
right title and interest; and the Estate of Rosalind R.
Bookman, to include its unknown personal representatives,
heirs, devisees, executors, administrators,
grantees, assigns, or successors in the right title
and interest, cause their appearances to be entered
herein on or before the ninetieth (90th) day, exclusive
of Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, occurring
after the day of the first publication of this Order;
otherwise, this cause will be proceeded as a default
against said Defendants. Its is provided, however,
that a copy of this Order shall be published
twice a month for three successive months in the
National Law Journal before said day.
/s/ Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
(Signed in chambers)
Dates of Publication
February 06, 13, March 05, 12, April 02,
09, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 001965 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
STEPHANIE SEGUE
8909 Charred Oak Drive
Bethesda, MD 20817-1921
vs.
CHRISTOPHER J. DIFFELL 1614 17th Street NW,
#301 Washington, DC 20009, And DEBORAH K.
CURRAN, SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE c/o McCabe, Weisberg
& Conway, LLC 8101 Sandy Spring Rd, Suite 100
Laurel, MD 20707-3596, And AARON D. NEAL, SUB-
STITUTE TRUSTEE c/o McCabe, Weisberg & Conway,
LLC 8101 Sandy Spring Rd, Suite 100 Laurel MD
20707-3596, And D.C. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1800 Martin Luther
King, Jr. Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20020,
And CAPTIAL BANK NA FBO MUNITRUST CAPITAL
FUND II, LLC c/o John E. Reid, Esq. Tobin, O’Connor
& Ewing 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Suite 700
Washington DC 20015, And THE DISTRICT OF CO-
LUMBIA, Serve: Mayor of the District of Columbia,
Vincent Gray, Attn: Office of the Secretary, 1350
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., #419, Washington, DC
20001, Serve: Attorney General of the District of Columbia,
Attn: Darlene Fields, 441 4th Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20001, And All Unknown Owners of
the Property described below, their Heirs, Personal
Representatives, Executors, Administrators, Grantees,
Assigns or Successors in Right, Title, Interest,
and Any and all persons having or claiming to have
any interest in the leasehold or fee simple in the
property and premises situate, lying and being in the
District of Columbia described as: Square 0357, Lot
0078. May also be known as 925 W Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20001.
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 0357, Lot 0078
which may also be known as 925 W Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20001. The complaint states, among
other things, that the amounts necessary for redemption
have not been paid. Pursuant to the Chief
Judge's Administrative Order Number 02-11, it is
this 29th day of February, 2012, ORDERED by the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia, that notice
be given by the insertion of a copy of this Order in
the National Law Journal, a newspaper of general
circulation in the District of Columbia, once a week
for three (3) successive weeks, notifying all persons
interested in the Real Property described above to
appear in this Court by the 5th day of September,
2012, and redeem the Real Property by payment of
$3,749.62 together with interest from the date the
Real Property tax certificate was purchased; court
costs and attorney's fees; expenses incurred in the
publication and service of process by publication and
for reasonable fees for the title search; all other
amounts paid by the petitioner in accordance with
the provisions of D. C. Code §47-1361 and all outstanding
municipal lien amounts due and owing on
the aforementioned Real Property, or answer the
complaint, or, thereafter, a final judgment will be entered
foreclosing the right of redemption in the Real
Property and vesting in the Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
March 19, 26 April 02, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2006 CA 003529 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
DR. TRUIT PROSPER
Plaintiff
vs.
JOHN GILBERT ROBINSON 3716-26th STREET, NE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20018, And HAVILAH REAL
PROPERTIES, LLC. SERVED ON: JEAN-MARIE SYLLA,
JR. TAYLOR, SYLLA & AGIN, LLP THE COMMERCIAL
NATIONAL BANK BUILDING 1420 NEW YORK AVE-
NUE, NW SUITE 810 WASHINGTON DC 20005, And
VLK, LLC SERVED ON; TIMOTHY SULLIVAN, REGIS-
TERED AGENT 2500 Q STREET, NW, SUITE 238 NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20016, And THE HONORABLE
MAYOR ANTHONY WILLIAMS AND THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA SERVED ON: THE OFFICE OF THE SECRE-
TARY C/O TABITHA BRAXTON 1350 PENNSYLVANIA
AVE., NW WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004, And ASSIST-
ANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
GOVERNMENT SERVED ON: ATTORNEY GENERAL’ S
OFFICE C/O JANICE STOKES 441-4TH STREET, NW
SIXTH FLOOR SOUTH WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001,
And All persons or entities having an interest,
whether an ownership, leasehold or claim located in
the District of Columbia either known as or identified
and located at 2419 Elvans Road, SE, Washington, D.
C., Square 5873, Lot Number 0049 (vacant lot). The
lot is located two (2) blocks east of the intersection
of Stanton Road and Elvans Road, SE and it is directly
across the street from the multi-unit apartment
complex identified by the address of 2434 Elvans
Road, S.E.
Defendants
AMENDED ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 5873 Lot 0049, a vacant
lot identified and located at 2419 Elvans Road,
S.E., Washington D.C. The lot is located two blocks
east of the intersection of Staton Road and Elvans
Road, S.E. and it is directly across the street from
the multi-unit apartment complex identified by the
address of 2434 Elvans Road, S.E.. The complaint
states, among other things, that the amounts necessary
for redemption have not been paid. Pursuant to
the Chief Judge's Administrative Order Number 02-
11, it is this 2nd day of February, 2012, ORDERED by
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, that
notice be given by the insertion of a copy of this Order
in the National Law Journal, a newspaper of
general circulation in the District of Columbia, once
a week for three (3) successive weeks, notifying all
persons interested in the Real Property described
above to appear in this Court by the 23rd day of May,
2012, and redeem the Real Property by payment of
$19,936.82 together with interest from the date the
Real Property tax certificate was purchased; court
costs and attorney's fees; expenses incurred in the
publication and service of process by publication and
for reasonable fees for the title search; all other
amounts paid by the petitioner in accordance with
the provisions of D. C. Code §47-1361 and all outstanding
municipal lien amounts due and owing on
the aforementioned Real Property, or answer the
complaint, or, thereafter, a final judgment will be entered
foreclosing the right of redemption in the Real
Property and vesting in the Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
March 19, 26 April 02, 2012
INDIVIDUAL
VIRGINIA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
CL NO. 2012-03225
JUI-HUA CHUNG, COMPLAINANT
VS
CHING-YU TSENG, DEFENDANT
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
The reason for this cause is to obtain a divorce. An
affidavit having been made and filed showing that
the Defendant in the above-entitled cause is a Defendant
lives outside of the United States in Taipei,
Taiwan; and the last known mailing address of the
Defendant is as follows: CHING-YU TSENG 111 Rong
Hua Street, Hsing Fong Hsiang, Hsing Chu hsian, Taipei,
Taiwan 304. Upon consideration, this Order of
Publication is granted and it is ORDERED that the
above named Defendant shall appear here on or before
the 19th day of April, 2012 after proper publication
of this Order, to protect his/her interest in this
cause. Entered: Febraury 29, 2012, TESTE: JOHN T.
FREY, CLERK, BY: /s/ Deisy M. Estevez, Deputy Clerk
Dates of Publication:
March 12, 19, 26, April, 02, 2012
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA CIRCUIT COURT
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
CASE NO: CL12001662
Flor Ines Lopez (Complainant)
v.
Daniel John Lee (Defendant)
THE OBJECT OF THIS SUIT IS TO: OBTAIN A DI-
VORCE A VINCULO MATRIMONII ON THE GROUNDS
that the parties have lived separate and apart, without
any cohabitation and without any interruption for
a period of more than one year, namely since on or
about January 26, 2011; that the Complainant be
awarded such further relief as this Court may deem
just and proper and the nature of this case may require.
IT IS ORDERED THAT Daniel John Lee AP-
PEAR AT THE ABOVE-NAMED COURT AND PROTECT
HIS/HER INTERESTS ON OR BEFORE April 23, 2012.
/s/ Gloria Bannister, Deputy Clerk, March 01, 2012
Dates of Publication:
March 12, 19, 26, April 2, 2012
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA CIRCUIT COURT
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
CASE NO: CL12001798
Stephane Carrenard-Bright (Complainant)
v.
Luckner Bright Jr. (Defendant)
THE OBJECT OF THIS SUIT IS TO: OBTAIN A DI-
VORCE A VINCULO MATRIMONII ON THE GROUNDS
that the parties have lived separate and apart, withoutany
cohabitation and without any interruption for
a period of more than one year, namely since on or
about January 05, 2011; that she be awarded custody
of the parties minor child(ren) and appropriate
support and maintenance therefor; that the Complainant
be awarded such further relief as this Court
may deem just and proper and the nature of this
case may require. IT IS ORDERED THAT Luckner
Bright Jr. APPEAR AT THE ABOVE-NAMED COURT
AND PROTECT HIS/HER INTERESTS ON OR BEFORE
April 30, 2012.
BY: /s/ Gloria Bannister, Deputy Clerk
March 08, 2012
Dates of Publication:
March 19, 26 April 02, 09, 2012
VIRGINIA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
CL NO. 2012- 01986
Margie M. Banks, COMPLAINANT
VS
Marcus H. Banks, DEFENDANT
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
The reason for this cause is to obtain a divorce. An
affidavit having been made and filed showing that
the Defendant in the above-entitled cause is cannot
be found, and that diligence has been used without
effect to ascertain the location of the party to be
served; and the last known mailing address of the
Defendant is as follows: Marcus H. Banks 156 Lynhaven
Ave Alexandria, VA 22314. Upon consideration,
this Order of Publication is granted and it is OR-
DERED that the above named Defendant shall appear
here on or before the 26th day of April, 2012 after
proper publication of this Order, to protect his/
her interest in this cause. Entered: March 07, 2012,
TESTE: JOHN T. FREY, CLERK, BY: /s/ Deisy M. Estevez,
Deputy Clerk, /s/ Margie M. Banks 7831 Lewis
Chapel Cir., Apt. 204 Lorton, VA 22079 (571) 331-
0886
Dates of Publication:
March 19, 26 April 02, 09, 2012
Public notice
Superior Court of the
District of Columbia
~
Probate Division Civil Division
~
Triple-Check Accuracy
~
Excellent Value Pricing
~
Personal Customer Service
For further information,
call LaToya Barbour
202 828-0362 or email
LBarbour@alm.com

54 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ April 2, 2012
Paid listings
For information on how to get
your firm listed in this directory,
call (202) 828-0363.
NLJ Legal Services Directory
Court Reporting
Services
Nationwide Court Reporting Services
Got depositions
(877) 808-3376
Free Conference Rooms
E-mail: vincent@courtreporterdepot.com
Website: www.courtreporterdepot.com
Principal Contact: Vincent Rosalia
CourtReporterDepot is a national
court reporting company with offices
throughout United States. The philosophy
behind CourtReporterDepot
is to simplify the way in which a legal
professional sources a court reporter
outside of their home office area.
We do not broker your deposition
to another court reporting agency.
All depositions are handled by our
own prescreened and certified court
reporters. We handle depositions from
start to finish!
Our services include:
• National Court Reporting Services
• Pre-Screened & Certified Court Reporters
• Free Conference Rooms
• Expedited Service
• Videoconferencing
• Transcript & Exhibit Repositories
• Exhibit Linking...and much more!
Call today to schedule a deposition or
learn more about Court Reporter Depot
(877) 808-3376
www.courtreporterdepot.com
Electronic Discovery
Services
CliCKS
Document Management
(202) 842-3430
(202) 842-4641
E-mail: vansari@clicksdocs.com
Website: www.clicksdocs.com
Principal Contact: Vicki Ansari
When a law firm chooses CliCKS,
they not only get a flexible, customizable
document management
solution, they also get our years of
expertise in document management.
The project managers and support
staff at CliCKS will be with you every
step of the way in the document
production process-from assessing
your document production needs and
how we can meet them, to creating
an approach that meets or exceeds
your expectations.
* Document Imaging
* Electronic Data Discovery (EDD)
* Digital Blowbacks (B&W and Color)
* CD/DVD Duplication
* Trial Exhibits and Presentation
* Litigation Photocopying
Legal Staffing
Staffing
eCruiting
Legal eStaffing, Inc.
(703) 319-8887
E-mail: apply@legalestaffing.com
Website: www.legalestaffing.com
eCruiting Job Board:
www.legalecruit.com
Principal Contacts: Jeanette Derby
Legal eStaffing, Inc. provides complete
legal staffing solutions to the legal community
such as traditional Temporary and Direct
Hire Placement Services, Attorney Project
Staffing, Technical Placement and DC’s first
legal job board, Legal eCruit.com, where
law firms and corporate legal departments
have direct access to job posting and resume
searching services.
We Provide the Best in:
Attorneys
Paralegals/Legal Assistants
Litigation Support
Information Technology
Legal Secretaries
Receptionists/Admin Assistants
Document Word Processors
Facilities/Office Services
Records/Docketing
Library Services
Finance/Billing Specialists
Human Resources Professionals
Administrators/Managers
Robert Half Legal
(202) 626-0260
E-mail:
Washington.dc@roberthalflegal.com
Websites: www.roberthalflegal.com
www.roberthalflegal.com/projectspace
Principal Contact: Ron Allen, Branch
Manager, and Michael Gibeault, Vice
President of National Products.
Robert Half Legal is the legal staffing
division of Robert Half International.
The company provides law firms and
corporate legal departments with highly
skilled professionals, including attorneys,
paralegals and legal support personnel,
on a project and full-time basis.
Robert Half Legal also offers secure and
complimentary project space with stateof-the-art
technology solutions.
Legal Support Services
codeMantra, LLC
(610) 940-1724
E-mail: rgrande@codemantra.com
Website: www.codemantra.net
Principal Contact: Robert Grande
codeMantra, LLC is an international
provider of comprehensive litigation
support, document management and
technology solutions. Our clients
consist of fortune 500 corporations,
Amlaw Top 250 firms, document
management and service providers.
Our solutions include legal process
outsourcing software development,
programming, data conversion and
document review management. (cP-
DocRev v2.0).
The Ford Agency, Inc.
(202) 463-8241
E-mail: areiling@ford-agency.com
Website: www.ford-agency.com
Principal Contacts: Diana Ford,
Barbara Pisarra, Ann Reiling &
Jessica Davis
The Ford Agency offers our clients a
perfected permanent, temporary and
temp-to hire placement experience
founded on personalized service and a
commitment to quality. Since 1978, The Ford
Agency has served Washington’s legal
community; therefore, we understand
that finding the “ideal” employee for
your legal support needs can be an
extremely timely and exhaustive process.
Our commitment to conducting faceto-face
interviews and ability to then
present you with only the most qualified
candidates, turns that challenge into a
valuable investment. Our recruitment
efforts allow us to help clients and
candidates make the best choice, the
first time.
Adding value to your team in the
following positions::
• Paralegals/Legal Assistants
• Receptionist/Admin Assistants
• Executive Assistants
• Facilities/Office Services
• Human Resources Professionals
• Finance/Billing/Accounting
• Administrators/Managers
• Litigation Support
• Records/Docketing
• Library Services
• Information Technology/Help Desk
LEXOLUTION, LLC
DC (202) 729-6890
NY (212) 370-9400
LA (310) 461-1470
Richmond (804) 317-6659
E-mail: kstempel@lexolution.net
Website: www.lexolution.net
Principal Contacts:
Karen Ostrow Stempel, Julianne Jaffe,
Gina Beck, and Lamine Reese
Lexolution, LLC is a leading legal staffing
firm specializing in temporary and
temp to perm placement of attorneys
and paralegals. We also offer quality
office space in the heart of downtown
for document reviews and productions.
Founded and managed by accomplished
attorneys, Lexolution is committed
to maintaining the highest ethical
and professional standards with our
clients and candidates. We make the
effort to identify and recruit the very
best person for every job. We apply our
knowledge, experience and creativity
to meet the evolving needs of our clients
in a demanding business environment.
Graham Staffing Services
202-861-1260
E-mail: staffing@grahaminc.com
Website: www.grahaminc.com
Principal Contacts: Dianne Childers,
Mary Ann Jones and Denise Allen Browne
Graham Staffing Services, a woman
owned company, has been successfully
serving the greater DC area since 1984.
With offices in DC, MD & VA, our exceptional
legal counselors each provide
over 20 years of successful legal placement
experience. We listen closely to the
needs of our clients and our candidates
to find their ideal match which accounts
for our success and outstanding reputation
in the legal community. Consider
Graham for your next Temporary, Tempto-Hire
or Permanent legal placement.
We stand ready to solve all your staffing
problems. We take the stress out of staffing
for our clients and our candidates!
Our goal is not only to provide you with
exceptional service, but to add that personal
touch that makes us unequaled!
Our Outstanding Services include:
• Legal Administrators
• Legal Secretaries
• Paralegals/Legal Assistants
• Administrative Assistants/Executive
Assistants
• Marketing Professionals
• Receptionists
• Sign Language Interpreters
• Human Resources Professionals
• Library Services
• Information Specialists/Help Desk
• Financial/Billing/Bookkeepers
• Records/Docketing

. the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ April 2, 2012 April 2, 2012 55 55
PATENT ASSOCIATE
The Washington, D.C. office of Baker & Hostetler LLP is seeking a
patent attorney with a background in Chemical Engineering. The ideal
candidate will have 2-4 years of signifi cant experience in prosecution
and possess exceptional writing/analytical skills. Candidates must
be registered or eligible to practice before the United States Patent
and Trademark Office. Candidates with strong academic credentials
and a law degree from a top tier school will be considered. Qualified
individuals interested in the position should send their resume to the
attention of Ettastine Williams, Human Resources Manager, Baker
& Hostetler LLP, 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20036; ewilliams@bakerlaw.com; or facsimile to (202) 861-1783.
Tax Associate For Exempt Organizations
Boutique law firm is seeking a tax associate with 2 to 4 years of
experience for our EO practice. Ideal candidate has experience
working with tax-exempt organizations in law firm or government
setting. All applicants must have strong academic credentials,
excellent written and oral communication skills, attention to detail,
and the ability to balance competing priorities and work as a team
player. Successful applicant will join nationally recognized exempt
organizations practice advising diverse array of leading nonprofit
organizations, including publicly supported charities, private
foundations, universities, advocacy organizations, political
organizations, and churches. Competitive salary with excellent
employee benefits package.
Interested parties should send cover letter, resume, and transcript
to namerg@capdale.com. Only serious candidates need apply
(please no phone calls). Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered is an equal
opportunity employer.
CORPORATE ASSOCIATE – TYSONS CORNER
Miles & Stockbridge P.C. is seeking a Virginia-barred lawyer with
3-5 years of experience in mergers & acquisitions, corporate, and
securities matters to join our Tysons Corner, VA office. Experience
should include technology transactions (outsourcing, buying/selling,
licensing and distributing) and venture capital and/or private equity
transactions. Please email cover letters and resumes to: Dina R.
Billian, Esq., Recruitment Manager & Pro Bono Coordinator,
dbillian@milesstockbridge.com. EOE.
Call 347-227-3145
to Advertise in NLJ Classifieds
Your best hire
may be
reading
Legal
Times
today.
Help them find
your company with
an employment ad
in Legal Times Classified.
Call 202-828-0372 or e-mail
LTadvertise@alm.com
SUPERVISORY ATTORNEY-ADVISOR (GS-0905-15)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS
AND THE OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEYS
The Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) was rated in the
top 10 of 246 agency sub-components and deemed one of the best places
to work. For more information, visit http://data.bestplacestowork.org/bptw/
index. EOUSA is a fast-paced component of the Department of Justice and is
responsible for providing a full range of administrative and legal advice and
services to the 94 United States Attorneys’ Offices (USAOs) throughout the
United States, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The USAOs range in
size from approximately 25 to 700 employees and each office is headed by a
Presidentially-Appointed United States Attorney. This position is located in the
Offi ce of Legal Education (OLE), Executive Office for United States Attorneys
(EOUSA), and is currently located at the National Advocacy Center (NAC),
Columbia, South Carolina.
This position is with the Office of Legal Education (OLE), Executive Office
for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), and is currently located at the National
Advocacy Center (NAC), Columbia, South Carolina. OLE supports the legal
training needs of EOUSA, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and other federal
legal personnel. The incumbent, who is the Deputy Associate Director, fully
shares the duties, responsibilities, and authority of the Associate Director;
serves as the Associate Director’s principal advisor; leads development of
policies, directives, and procedures; and is responsible for overall management
of OLE and the NAC. The Deputy Associate Director collaborates with
the Associate Director in developing OLE goals, programs, and priorities by
analyzing resource requirements and recommending approaches that best
support th missions of EOUSA, the USAO’s, and the Attorney General. Directs
reviews of OLE actvities and initiatives to assure efficiency and effectiveness
of staff activities, use of innovative approaches to learning, and compliance
with laws, regulations, contracts, and program goals.
Candidates are solicited at the GS-15 level, ranging in pay from $113,735-
$147,857 per year, depending on current salary and experience.
The position is located in Columbia, South Carolina. Relocation expenses will
not be authorized.
To apply, please reference advertisement 12-EOUSA-616952-DE through the
U.S. Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management at http://www.usajobs.
gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/310606400. Applications must be received no
later than March 23rd, 2012. The U.S. Department of Justice is an Equal
Opportunity/Reasonable Accommodation Employer.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C.
SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL
VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT #12-015
Closing Date: March 30, 2012
The Office of the General Counsel at the Federal Election Commission
is recruiting for a Special Counsel to the General Counsel. The Special
Counsel will provide legal and advisory support to the General Counsel
on a variety of legal issues, including administrative and constitutional law
and the interpretation of federal statutes and regulations.
Successful candidates will have a J.D. degree from an accredited law school,
four or more years of appropriate legal experience, and superior analytical
and communication skills. Experience with campaign finance law is
desirable but not required.
For a copy of the vacancy announcement listing specific application
requirements, please call 202-694-1080 or visit our website at
www.fec.gov and click on “About the FEC”. The FEC is an Equal
Opportunity Employer.

56 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ April 2, 2012
56 April 2, 2012
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) requests proposals to
pre-qualify international transaction counsel in connection with
IDB’s private sector and non-sovereign guaranteed projects.
http://www.iadb.org/en/resources-for-businesses/idb-procurement-opportunities,5825.html
Find
the
Right
Person
Through Legal Times
Classified‐Advertising.
SmithAmundsen LLC is seeking to further expand our Missouri practice
and to develop an Indiana presence through the addition of partner-level
lateral attorneys with portable business in the following practice areas:
Labor & Employment, Commercial Litigation, Banking, Bankruptcy,
Professional Liability Defense, Healthcare Compliance, and Corporate
Transactions. Only attorneys with portable business need apply.
Headquartered in Chicago, SmithAmundsen is comprised of 140
attorneys based in six offices in Illinois, Wisconsin and Missouri. Our
attorneys regularly practice in all venues within the states of Illinois,
Wisconsin and Missouri in both state and federal court. In addition,
our attorneys are retained on a regional and national basis by clients
to handle both coordinating counsel responsibilities as well as direct
representation of clients in other jurisdictions.
Please submit your resumé in confidence to mdelargy@salawus.com
or by mail to:
Michael L. DeLargy
SmithAmundsen LLC
150 N. Michigan Avenue
Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60601
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created to make markets
for consumer financial products and services work for Americans. We are
creating a world-class Research, Markets and Regulations organization
in Washington DC to achieve our consumer protection mission. We are
seeking an innovative thought leader to be an authority on the most
significant legal issues and conducts complex projects related to the
formulation, implementation and interpretation of laws, regulations and
rules in the areas of financial services and consumer credit law.
This position is eligible for a salary up to $224,983.00, and includes an
outstanding benefits and retirement package.
This opportunity closes Thursday, April 05, 2012, so please contact us at
your earliest convenience.
hr@consumerfinance.gov
COUNSEL (REgULatiONS)
TESTIMONY
SERVICES FOR LAWYERS
- OFFICES FOR RENT -
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS
For more information on classified
advertising, contact
Leonie Christie
347-227-3145 | LChristie@alm.com
CREDIT REPORTING
NLJ Classified Print ad_all 3 sizes_final.indd 5
2/11/11 12:14 PM

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 57
06.14
ANNUAL AWARDS DINNER
Celebrating the Nation’s
Most Innovative Law
Firms and Successful
Litigators
THE NEW YORK PALACE
455 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Thursday, June 14, 2012
6:00-7:00 p.m. Cocktail Reception
7:00-10:00 p.m. Dinner & Presentation
Please join us as we honor 2012’s
best legal strategists and strategies.
Talk to us today about attending or
sponsoring this event: Contact
Andre Sutton at asutton@alm.com
or 757-721-9020.
Hot List Honorees:
Appellate Litigation
■
Intellectual Property
■
Litigation Boutiques
■
Pro Bono
■
Mid-Size Firms
■
Winning Litigators
NLJ-12-02558-NLJ-NLJFP_10.125x13.5.indd 1
3/27/12 3:50 PM

Opinion
Sound off
Send letters to the editor to rsingleton@alm.com.
58 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012
Who owns lands
Above: The Holter dam on the
Missouri river, near wolf creek,
Mont., is operated by PPL Montana.
under
rivers
In ‘PPL Montana,’ high court correctly ruled that whether a river is navigable,
and thus state-owned, depends on its status at the time of statehood.
AP Photo/Great Falls Tribune, Stuart S. White, File
By James L. Huffman
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court
announced its decision in PPL
Montana v. Montana. It was a much
deserved 9-0 smackdown of the Montana
Supreme Court’s ruling that dams
operated for decades by PPL Montana
and its predecessors were located on
land owned by the state of Montana,
and that rent, to the tune of $41 million,
was in arrears.
On the surface, the case looked like a
local dispute turning on technical questions
that only a few dozen water lawyers
could understand or care about. It
centered around the legal definition of
navigability for the purpose of determining
ownership of lands lying beneath PPL
Montana hydroelectric facilities on three
Montana rivers. The state of Montana
claimed title to the lands and demanded
back rent from PPL Montana. The company
claimed that the submerged lands
in question are owned by the riparian
landowner, in most instances the United
States, and that it had been paying rent
for decades to the U.S. government.
Who owns the lands beneath America’s
rivers Since the founding of the
republic it has been understood that,
pursuant to the equal-footing doctrine,
the states own lands under navigable
rivers, while the riparian owners have
title to lands under non-navigable rivers.
Thus, title depends on whether a river is
navigable. Since before Montana’s statehood
in 1889, it has been settled that,
for the purpose of determining state
title to submerged lands, the river in
question must have been navigable in
fact or susceptible to navigation at the
time of statehood.
Thus, the case has national implications
of enormous consequence in terms
of both title to submerged lands and
property rights in general. If the Montana
Supreme Court decision had been
upheld, it would have effectively transferred
to the state, from the United States
and thousands of private owners, title
to land underlying roughly 500 miles
of Montana rivers. And it would have
cleared the way for similar confiscations
on thousands of miles of waterways in
other states.
Much of that land has been recorded
for decades as private property on which
property taxes have been paid, and on
which irrigation head gates and other
facilities are located. Thousands of ranchers
and farmers were next in line to be
invoiced for past rent.
For the entirety of the 20th century,
Montana made no claim to own the
lands at issue in the lawsuit. The state,
and everyone else, assumed that the
lands were owned either by the United
States, dating back to the Louisiana
Purchase, or by private parties, where
the adjacent lands had been transferred
to private ownership. Not until a dozen
years ago did it occur to the state that the
submerged lands could be a good source
of revenue.
The PPL Montana case involved submerged
lands on the Madison, Clark Fork
and Missouri rivers. On the Madi son, the
question was whether one failed effort to
float a log raft and modern recreational
use are evidence of navigability at the
time of statehood. On the other rivers,
the question was whether river segments
interrupted by impassable waterfalls and
rapids (extending over a stretch of 17
miles on the Missouri) should be consid-
See RIVERS, Page 59

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ april 2, 2012 59
Opinion
RIVERS, from page 58
ered navigable because other stretches of
those rivers have been navigated.
The U.S. Supreme Court found the
Montana high court in error on the
Madison because present-day recreational
use is not proof that “the river could sustain
the kinds of commercial use that…
might have occurred at the time of statehood.”
With respect to the Clark Fork
and Missouri, the Montana court’s rejection
of “a piecemeal classification of navigability—with
some stretches declared
navigable, and others declared nonnavigable,”
was found to ignore Supreme
Court precedent to the contrary. “The
segment-by-segment approach to navigability
for title is well settled,” wrote
Justice Anthony Kennedy, “and it should
not be disregarded.”
The case will be remanded to the
Montana court for a determination of
whether any of the river segments in
question are navigable consistent with
Supreme Court precedent, although the
Court left little room for a finding of navigability.
But that does not mean that private
property in submerged lands is now
free of threats from the state of Montana.
In its brief and oral argument before
the Supreme Court, Montana linked its
ownership claim in submerged lands
to the public-trust doctrine on which
the Montana Supreme Court previously
relied to allow public access to private
lands. The high court correctly dismissed
the argument as irrelevant to establishing
state title. Unlike the constitutional
equal-footing doctrine pursuant to which
all states enter the union with title to
submerged lands under rivers navigable
“Public-trust doctrine
is irrelevant to
establishing state
title, the Court ruled.
at the time of statehood, said the Court,
the public-trust doctrine is a matter of
state law.
Because the Montana Supreme Court
has aggressively expanded common law
public-trust doctrine beyond all recognition,
owners of submerged lands in
the state may find themselves subject to
uncompensated constraints on the use of
their now confirmed property rights. But
at least the PPL Montana decision has
eliminated the incentive for state officials
to seek rents on what people reasonably
believe is their own property.
James L. Huffman is dean emeritus at
Lewis & Clark Law School and a member of
the Hoover Institution Task Force on Property
Rights, Freedom and Prosperity.
The lending industry’s
conundrum
Reducing adverse lending outcomes tends to increase
racial differences in those outcomes.
By James P. Scanlan
The Justice Department’s complaint
filed in conjunction with the record
$335 million settlement of lending
discrimination claims against Countrywide
Financial Corp. sends one clear message
to lenders: Once aware that their practices
lead to racial disparities in things like
assignment to subprime loans, lenders
must seek out less discriminatory alternatives.
That message puts lenders in a difficult
position, and not for the first time.
In the 1990s, when standard lending
criteria were found to cause disparities
in rejection rates of white and minority
mortgage applicants, lenders were urged
to relax those criteria. Doing so was akin
to the lowering of cutoffs on employment
tests that disproportionately disadvantaged
certain groups. Lowering cutoffs had long
been regarded as reducing the disparate
impact of such tests because it reduces relative
differences in pass rates. For example,
if pass rates are 80 percent for an advantaged
group (AG) and 63 percent for a disadvantaged
group (DG), DG’s pass rate is
about 21 percent lower than AG’s pass rate.
But if the cutoff is lowered to the point
where 95 percent of AG passes, assuming
normal test score distributions, DG’s pass
rate would be about 87 percent. Thus, with
the lower cutoff, DG’s pass rate would be
only 8.4 percent lower than AG’s pass rate.
But, whereas lowering cutoffs tends to
reduce disparities in pass rates, it tends to
increase disparities in failure rates. In the
situation just posited, DG’s failure rate (37
percent) was initially 1.9 times as high as
AG’s failure rate (20 percent). After the
cutoff was lowered, DG’s failure rate (13
percent) was 2.6 times AG’s failure rate
(5 percent).
This pattern is not peculiar to test-score
data or the numbers I chose to illustrate it.
Inherent in the shapes of normal distributions
of factors associated with experiencing
some outcome is a pattern whereby
the rarer an outcome, the greater tends to
be the relative difference in experiencing
it and the smaller tends to be relative difference
in avoiding it. The pattern can be
illustrated with any data showing points
on a continuum of factors associated with
experiencing an outcome. Such data show,
for example, that reducing poverty tends to
increase relative differences in poverty rates
while reducing relative differences in rates
of avoiding poverty or that reducing blood
pressure tends to increase relative differences
in hypertension while reducing relative
differences in rates of avoiding hypertension.
About 160 references explaining these
patterns as they bear on some misinterpretation
of data in the law or the social and
medical sciences—including my National
Law Journal article of March 5, 1990 (“An
Issue of Numbers”) and my three Legal
Times articles—are available at www.jpscanlan.com/measuringhealthdisp.html.
Relaxing lending criteria tends to reduce
disparities in mortgage approval rates just
as lowering cutoffs tends to reduce passrate
disparities. But it also tends to increase
relative differences in the mortgage rejection
rates that had prompted the initial
concern. And those monitoring lending disparities
continued to focus on rejection-rate
disparities. Thus, lenders that were most
responsive to the encouragement to relax
criteria—hence, more so than other lenders,
tending to reduce relative differences in
approval rates while increasing relative differences
in rejection rates—were regarded
as the most discriminatory lenders.
The failure to understand these statistical
patterns has been reflected in other mistaken
interpretations of lending disparities.
For example, both as to mortgage rejection
disparities and subprime disparities,
it has been asserted that arguments that
income differences account for the disparities
are refuted by the fact that disparities
are greater among higher-income groups
than lower-income groups. But relative
differences in adverse outcomes tend to be
larger among higher-income groups simply
because such outcomes are rarer among
such groups. For the same reason, relative
differences in favorable outcomes tend to
be smaller among higher-income groups.
Increasing attention is now being given
to foreclosure disparities, with calls for policies
that generally reduce foreclosure rates
and for enforcement of anti-discrimination
laws. But reductions in foreclosures, while
tending to reduce differences in rates at
which minorities and whites keep their
homes, will tend to increase the differences
in foreclosure rates that are prompting
the call for action. And lenders that individually
seek to reduce their foreclosure
rates are likely also to see their foreclosure
disparities rise.
So whether the disparity for which a
lender must seek a less discriminatory
alternative involves rejection rates, assignment
to subprime mortgages, foreclosures
or any other adverse outcome, the lender
must face the possibility that the course
that yields the lowest rate at which minorities
(and nonminorities) experience that
outcome will be perceived as the most discriminatory
course of all.
James P. Scanlan is an attorney in private
practice in Washington. He specializes in the
use of statistics in employment discrimination
litigation.
Publisher Stephen P. Lincoln
Editor in Chief David L. Brown
Managing Editor Ruth Singleton
deputy editor Sam Skolnik
Assistant Managing Editor Michael Moline
Art Director Tegist Legesse
new media Editor Jonathan Hayter
Supreme Court Correspondent Tony Mauro
Chief Washington Correspondent Marcia Coyle
Senior Reporter Jenna Greene (washington)
Boston Bureau Chief Sheri Qualters
Staff Reporters David Bario (ST. LOUIS);
Amanda Bronstad (Los Angeles); Matthew
Huisman (Washington); andrew ramonas
(Washington); Nate Raymond (NEW YORK);
Todd Ruger (Washington); Michael Scarcella
(Washington); Karen Sloan (New York);
Zoe Tillman (Washington)
Assistant Art Director Roberto Jimenez
Photo Editor Diego M. Radzinschi
Editorial Associate Tasha Norman
Chief Copy Editor Peter Dolack
Web Editor Richard Binder
intern leighanne manwarren
Contributors June D. Bell, Emily Heller
Associate Publisher kenneth gary
Vice President/National Advertising Michael Medwig
Marketing Consultants Roseann Agostino, lisa
corrigan, Ron Cummings, Barrie Harmelin,
Marnie Maroney, Joe Pavone, Patty Martin
Law Firm Account Managers JoAnn Cannon, Jennifer
Jones, Nicole Kramer, Jai Wallace
Classified Advertising Manager Leonie Christie
Public Notice Advertising
LaToya Barbour (Washington)
production manager Samuel Wong
production coordinators Evelyn Fernandez
editorial (212) 457-9400
advertising (212) 457-9490
circulation (877) ALM-CIRC
reprints (877) 257-3382
President & CEO Bill Carter
Senior Vice President/Chief Legal Officer
Allison C. Hoffman
Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
Eric F. Lundberg
Senior Vice President/Information & Research Solutions
Kevin H. Michielsen
Senior Vice President/Legal Media Kevin J. Vermeulen
Senior Vice President/Chief Technology Officer
Jeffrey K. Whittle
Vice President/Real Estate Media Michael Desiato
Vice President/Regional Businesses Stephen Lincoln
Vice President/Editor in Chief Aric Press
The National Law Journal is published by ALM Media,
LLC. Copyright © 2012 by ALM Media Properties,
LLC. All rights reserved. No reproduction of any portion
of this issue is allowed without written permission
from the publisher.
ALM Media, LLC, 120 Broadway , 5th fl., New York,
NY 10271 (212) 457-9400 (Corporate)
4 Metrotech, 21st fl., Brooklyn, NY 11201-3815
(877) 256-2472 (Subscriptions)

60 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ April 2, 2012
Voted
BEST PROCESS SERVER
In NY, PA, CT and
Rated #1 in NJ! *
Guaranteed
Subpoena Service, Inc
“If we don’t serve it, you don’t pay!” ®
Anywhere in the U.S.A.
Why would you use anyone else
1-800-PROCESS
800.776.2377
800.236.2092 [fax] info@served.com
www.served.com
*2010/2011 Polls, NYLJ and Legal Intelligencer; 2010/2011 Polls, Ct. Law Tribune;
Best remembered ad, Harvey Research Study, 2008-2010