Crossed_Gavels.svgThe following jury verdicts and settlements are a representative sampling of those cases our firm has handled on behalf of its clients.

Jury Verdicts And Settlements:

$250,000 – Valued settlement in a ADA discrimination case against an architectural firm (2012)

$90,000 – Settlement in defamation case against a University (2012)

$150,000 – Settlement in a defamation case against a hospital and health systems agency (2012)

$313,000,000 – Forest Laboratories settlement regarding the anti-depressant drugs Celexa and Lexapro for unapproved pediatric use and paid kickbacks to induce physicians to prescribe the drugs (2011)

For More Information on the Above Case, Click Here.

$130,000 – Settlement in a sexual harassment/retaliation case against a Virginia town (2010)

$250,000 – Settlement in a sexual harassment/retaliation case against a Fortune 100 company (2010)

$100,000 – Qui tam settlement against a medical delivery firm (2009)

$1,325,000 – Settlement in a retaliation case against a financial institution (2007)

$250,000 – Valued settlement in a contractual dispute against an Austrian distributor (2007)

$230,000 – Settlement in a corporate securities fraud case against multi-jurisdictional defendants in California and Pennsylvania (2007)

$185,000 – Valued settlement in a termination case of a CEO against an Austrian distributor (2007)

$80,000 – Settlement in an age discrimination case against a national women’s clothier (2006)

$500,000 – Valued settlement in a corporate fraud case against a publicly-traded Fortune 100 tobacco company (2006)

$300,000 – Settlement in a Sarbanes-Oxley case against a publicly-traded food distribution Fortune 500 company (2006)

$90,000 – Settlement in a corporate fraud case against a publicly-traded Fortune 500 medical supply company (2006)

$70,000 – Settlement in a retaliation case against a waste water treatment authority (2006)

$7,251,650 – Settlement in a termination case against a food distribution company (2004)

$220,000 – Valued settlement in a termination case against a tobacco company (2004)

$110,000 – Settlement in an age discrimination case against a tool manufacturer (2002)

$125,000 – Settlement in a fraudulent inducement case against a power company (2002)

$715,000 – Settlement in a sexual harassment case against an insurance company (2002)

$125,000 – Settlement in a fraudulent inducement case against a power company (2002)

$110,000 – Settlement in an age discrimination case against a tool manufacturer (2002)

$285,000 – Settlement in wrongful termination cases against a national medical-surgical supply
corporation (2002)

$237,000 – Settlement in an implied contract case against an international lottery firm (2001)

$452,000 – Settlement against a tobacco company (2001)

$450,000 – Settlement against a hospital for privacy act violations (1999)

$260,000 – Settlement in a sexual harassment case against an investment firm (1999)

$725,000 – Settlement in a product liability case against a pharmaceutical company (1998)

$100,000 – Settlement in a sexual harassment case against an investment firm (1999)

$700,000 – Settlement in a product liability case against a pharmaceutical company (1998)

$400,000 – Settlement in a sexual harassment case against an insurance company (1998)

$325,000 – Settlement in a reverse discrimination case against a communications company (1998)

$275,000 – Settlement in class action litigation for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act against a national collections firm (1998)

$800,000 – Verdict in the Henrico circuit court (1989)

$800,000 – Settlement in a product liability case against a pompom manufacturer (1974)

•The above Recent Cases,  Jury Verdicts and Settlements are provided in accordance with Legal-Ethics Opinion 1750 Advertising Issues and Rule 7.1 of the Virginia State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct effective January 1. 2000.

The results obtained in these Recent Cases. Jury Verdicts and Settlements are solely dependent on those variety of factors included in these particular cases. Further, each of these cases consisted of circumstances which were peculiar or unique to the specific case and as a result you. the public, should not rely upon these cases, as a predictor of the result likely to be obtained in your case. That is, your case is likely never to have a set of circumstances which precisely duplicates these cases, and as a result advertisement of the above cases, may not provide helpful information to you the consumer and in fact may mislead you as to the result that will be obtained in your case should you decide to retain our firm. These cases are listed solely for your information as each case accurately represents our firm’s work product solely in these particular cases not in cases similar to your case.