Drew York

Subscribe to Drew York's Posts
Contact:Read more about Drew York

businessman hands tearing apart money banknote into two peaces. vector illustration in flat designIn this series on defining wins in litigation, we’ve talked about defining the goals and strategies at the outset, clear and open communication, and the benefits of resolving a dispute both financially and reputationally.  The final piece in this series discusses why mitigating the plaintiff’s damage recovery can also be a “win”.  I can speak from experience because I have effectively used this strategy for a client.

Suppose your customer accuses your company of taking certain actions that violated the terms of your contract.  After digging into the contract and some other communications between the parties, it is clear you breached the contract.  It also appears that your employees’ actions violate a statute that allows the customer to recover punitive damages.  The customer claims $500,000 in compensatory damages, and wants another $3 million in punitive damages.  What do you do from a litigation strategy standpoint?
Continue Reading Defining a Win in Litigation: Mitigating Losses

Feedback online or review on computer laptop concept vector illustration, flat cartoon pc with voting hands thumbs gesture and reviews stars, idea of like or dislike symbolsIf your business provides consumer-oriented goods or services, your reputation is very important to you.  When I use the term “consumer-oriented,” I mean goods or services that are primarily used for personal or household purposes.  That is not to say that businesses that do not directly affect consumers are not worried about their reputations.  In fact, they are, because reputation means everything.

Suppose one of your customers claims one of your employees stole an item while they were at the customer’s home making repairs.  You interviewed all of the employees who were at the customer’s home.  None of them saw the item in question.  You speak to the homeowner, and discover that your employees were working in a completely different part of the house than where the homeowner keeps the item.  You looked in the company vehicles and do not see any evidence of the item.  The only thing supporting the customer’s claim is that the customer was not home at the time your employees were there.  The customer files a police report.  Your team cooperates, and the police do not find sufficient evidence to support any charges.  The customer is insistent that your employees took the item, and is threatening to sue.  What do you do?
Continue Reading Defining a Win in Litigation: Saving Reputational Costs

Last month we talked about how establishing goals for litigation “wins” requires taking emotion out of litigation, and clear communication between lawyer and client.  We also talked about the need to re-evaluate litigation goals as the facts and issues develop.  This month we’re going to discuss the hidden costs of litigation, and the benefits of early resolution.
Continue Reading Defining a Win in Litigation: Addressing the Hidden Costs

Last month I talked about how litigation “wins” don’t always require a jury finding in your favor.  This month we continue talking about reaching litigation “wins” through early communication and objectivity. If I got $100 for every time a client told me during an initial consultation that they wanted to extract a pound of flesh from the other side, I’d probably living the island life right now.  These clients aren’t individuals looking to sue some international conglomerate; most are entrepreneurs or business executives.  And I guarantee you that I am not alone.  Most lawyers would tell you they hear the same thing from clients during their initial consultation.  Sometimes clients continue that mantra for several months.  Some even go so far as to say something like, “I don’t care what it costs.  I want justice!”  I get it too.  When a client first contacts a lawyer about litigation, it’s because the client believes: (1) somebody did something that hurt the client (physically, emotionally or economically); or (2) somebody brought a bogus lawsuit against them. 
Continue Reading Defining a Win in Litigation: Flexible Goals and Open Communication Establish a Solid Foundation

Does a “win” in litigation require a final judgment in your favor?  Not necessarily.  Litigation “wins” are defined by the circumstances facing a party at the outset of litigation, and how those circumstances change as litigation progresses.  Over the next few months we will dive deeper into this topic, and talk about issues such as:
Continue Reading Defining a Win in Litigation

My last article pointed out a situation where parties conflate contractual indemnity and damages clauses.  The standard language in Dunce’s Caps’ contract provided for an indemnification of “any and all losses arising from any breach of any representation or warranty in the agreement” and capped those losses at the price of the order. When Dunce’s failed to deliver the promised 100,000 hats, Flat Backs filed an arbitration action seeking recovery of an alleged $4 million in damages, even though the purchase order price was only $500,000. Ignoring Dunce’s damages cap argument, the arbitrator Terry B.L. Judge awarded Flat Backs the full $4 million. Arguing that Judge was not permitted to award Flat Backs more than $500,000, Dunce’s appealed to the state court seeking to overturn the arbitration award because Judge exceeded his jurisdictional limits. Did Dunce’s contractual indemnification provision operate as a cap on the damages that Flat Backs could recover for Dunce’s breach of contract?
Continue Reading The Case of Mistaken Indemnity, Part 2

Nifty Counsel, Dunce’s Caps in-house lawyer, came up with what he thought was a brilliant way to minimize the company’s liability to its customers.  Nifty added arbitration provisions to Dunce’s customer purchase order agreements, and included language that the customer agreed the arbitrator could not award the customer damages exceeding the price of the order.  Flat Backs, a major retail hat company, filed an arbitration action against Dunce’s after Dunce’s failed to deliver 100,000 Auburn Tigers 2019 NCAA Men’s Basketball Champions hats.[1]  The demand for arbitration alleged $4 million in damages, even though the purchase order price was only $500,000.  Terry B.L. Judge, the arbitrator, ignored Dunce’s arguments that the purchase order’s arbitration clause prohibited Judge from awarding Flat Backs more than $500,000, and awarded Flat Backs the requested $4 million.  Dunce’s then asked a court to overturn the arbitration award for the same reason – Judge exceeded his jurisdictional limits.    
Continue Reading The Case of Mistaken Indemnity

In recent months we have discussed litigation funding, specifically covering what litigation funding entails, whether such agreements are legal in different jurisdictions and the ethical issues surrounding litigation funding agreements. There’s an opportunity to continue the conversation as we keep a close eye on the Texas Legislative Session, just as we did last month with a recap of bills related to civil litigation. Members of the Texas House and Senate introduced bills relating to the disclosure of litigation funding in state court lawsuits.
Continue Reading Could Litigation Funding Disclosure Be Coming to Texas?

The 86th Texas Legislative Session has been in swing for almost two months, so we thought now would be a good time to highlight some proposed legislation relating to civil litigation that may affect your business.

What if my Opponent Files a Claim in Arbitration After the Statute of Limitations Expires?
Continue Reading Litigation-Related Legislative Bills that May Affect Your Texas Company