Tag Archive for: kelsey-maxwell

Trial Victory in Medical Malpractice Case

/in

Dan L. Longo and Kelsey L. Maxwell of Murchison & Cumming LLP successfully defended a Physician’s Assistant in a case where the plaintiff claimed medical negligence and medical battery following a gym injury. The jury found in favor of the defense, determining that the Physician’s Assistant was not negligent and had acted within the standard of care.

The case began when the plaintiff tripped while walking up a flight of stairs at a gym, causing her glass water bottle to break, resulting in two cuts on her palm. Seeking immediate medical attention, she went to a nearby hospital, where the Physician’s Assistant provided treatment, including examination and imaging. The lacerations were repaired, and before discharge, the Physician’s Assistant coordinated a follow-up consultation with a hand surgeon. Three days after the incident, the plaintiff underwent surgery where two small pieces of glass were removed from her wound, followed by nerve and tendon repairs.

The plaintiff contended that the Physician’s Assistant’s treatment fell below the standard of care, alleging that the wound was closed despite the suspicion of retained glass. She also claimed that the nerve and tendon damage resulted from the retained glass, not the initial fall. Additionally, the plaintiff accused the Physician’s Assistant of closing the wound against her wishes, which she labeled as medical battery, and later asserted that she now suffers from Complex Regional Pain Syndrome due to the injuries.

The Physician’s Assistant served a C.C.P. 998 offer in January of 2024 to encourage settlement, but the offer was rejected.

The trial was bifurcated between liability and damages. The jury ultimately concluded that the Physician’s Assistant was not negligent in the care provided and confirmed that all medical procedures were performed with the plaintiff’s consent, leading to a favorable verdict for the defense.

Kelsey Maxwell Recognized as Southern California Rising Star

/in ,

Murchison & Cumming, LLP is pleased to announce that Partner Kelsey Maxwell has been selected as a 2024 Southern California Rising Star. Those recognized represent no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in Southern California.

Kelsey L. Maxwell is a Partner in the Los Angeles office of Murchison & Cumming. She focuses her practice on the areas of general liability and product liability with an emphasis in vertical transportation matters. Kelsey is a graduate of The University of Arizona (B.A.) and Chapman University, Dale E. Fowler School of Law (J.D.). She started with the firm as a summer associate in 2012 the Orange County office continuing on as a post-bar clerk in Los Angeles beginning in 2014. Having started undergraduate school at 17 and graduating in three years, Kelsey passed the California Bar Exam at only 23 and became a practicing attorney at M&C that same year.

Super Lawyers, a prestigious Thomson Reuters service, spotlights outstanding attorneys across more than 70 practice areas. These legal stars are celebrated for their impressive peer recognition and notable professional achievements. Each year, the selection process involves a unique, patented multiphase system, encompassing a statewide survey of lawyers, independent research evaluations, and peer reviews by practice area. The outcome is a trusted, comprehensive, and diverse directory of outstanding legal professionals.

Three from Murchison & Cumming Recognized as Southern California Rising Stars

/in ,

Murchison & Cumming, LLP is pleased to announce that Partners Kelsey Maxwell, Georgiana Nikias, and Joshua Praw have been selected to the 2023 Southern California Rising Stars list. This is an exclusive list, recognizing no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in Southern California.

Kelsey L. Maxwell focuses her practice on the areas of general liability and product liability with an emphasis in vertical transportation matters. Kelsey is a graduate of The University of Arizona (B.A.) and Chapman University, Dale E. Fowler School of Law (J.D.).

Georgiana A. Nikias focuses her practice in the areas of business litigation, employment law, products liability, general liability, intellectual property, art law, and commercial real estate litigation. Ms. Nikias is a graduate of the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law (J.D. and B.A.) and Oxford University (M.St.).

Joshua W. Praw focuses his practice in the areas of entertainment law, products liability, toxic tort, and construction defect. Mr. Praw is a graduate of University of San Diego School of Law (J.D.) and University of Wisconsin – Madison (B.A.).

Georgiana, Joshua, and Kelsey co-chair the firm’s Summer Associate and Post-Bar Law Clerk Programs where they train, mentor, and oversee the firm’s summer associates and post-bar law clerks.

Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.

Expand and Contract: Developments in Workers’ Compensation Exclusive Remedy

/in

By: Michael J. Nunez and Kelsey L. Maxwell

USLAW Magazine

View Link

Broadly speaking, the workers compensation exclusive remedy provision holds that employers are immune from liability for injuries incurred by employees during the course of employment. This exclusive remedy provision is codified in a number of states in order “to give efficacy to the theoretical “compensation bargain” between the employer and employee.” Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 689, 697. While this rule is routinely applied when the injured party is an employee of the employer, a question often arises as to whether the exclusion applies to an employer (or landowners) when the injured party is an employee of an independent contractor or subcontractor. States vary in how widely or narrowly this doctrine is applied when it comes to employees of independent contractors, subcontractors, or other hirees and in the last few years, various states have taken steps to either expand or contract the application of this doctrine.

Nevada

Most recently, Nevada has expanded this doctrine as it applies to employees of independent contractors and subcontractors. Dating back decades, Nevada has afforded independent contractors and subcontractors the same status as employers when it comes to “exclusive remedy” so long as the contractor is in the same trade, business, profession or occupation as the employer of the injured worker. Nevada refers to this analysis as the “normal work test.” The defining question of the “normal work test” is whether the work being performed is normally, in that business, carried on through employees rather than independent contractors.

In the recent unpublished decision of Sedano v. Houston, the court concluded that Sedano was bound by the exclusive remedy rule where the court determined that Houston was not performing a specialized repair. 2018 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 280, *3-5. Sedano worked at a residential construction site when Houston’s employee, who was operating a crane to install roof trusses, lowered a truss onto Sedano. There, Sedano’s employer was not qualified to use cranes so it hired Houston to perform crane work on the project. The court determined Houston was hired to provide a service directly in furtherance of the overall project (i.e., building a residential structure).” Thus, the exclusive remedy defense applied. Sedano v. Houston is compared to D&D Tire, Inc. v. Ouellette.

In D & D Tire, Inc. v. Ouellette, an employee of Allied, hired to perform tire service work on mining equipment, was injured when an employee of a third-party, Purcell, who was repairing the Allied employee’s truck, backed the truck into the Allied employee. 131 Nev. Adv. Rep. 47, 352 P.3d 32, 34. The Supreme Court concluded that the Purcell employee was sent to the work site for the purpose of specialized repairs on the truck and therefore was not a statutory employee of Allied. Id. at, 352 P.3d at 37.

Washington

Similarly in Washington, the Court of Appeals recently decided a case (Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass’n v. City of Seattle, 2018 Wash. App. LEXIS 2890), challenging the validity of a ballot initiative in the state. Initiative 124 (I-124) established health, safety, and labor standards for hotel employees within Seattle. In part, the initiative conferred subject matter jurisdiction on a state court to resolve work-related injury claims. The Court of Appeals instructed the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of the challenging parties in part, because the initiative conflicted with key provisions of Washington’s workers’ compensation system by creating a private cause of action that does not exist under Washington law. The Court explained that Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act represents a “grand compromise” between industry and labor to remove workplace injuries from the court system and to provide injured workers with a swift, no-fault compensation system for on-the-job injuries. Accordingly, the Court held that even if a city could lawfully enact worker safety provisions that are stricter than those imposed by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, the city cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on a state court to resolve work-related injury claims when, by statute, the Washington legislature has abolished that very jurisdiction more than a century ago. This was a clear affirmation of the State’s exclusive remedy rule.

California

California on the other hand has gone in a different direction, narrowing the scope of the application of this doctrine to employees of independent contractors and subcontractors. The leading case in California regarding property owners’ liability to employees of independent contractors working on its land is Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 689. In Privette, the California Supreme Court limited the breadth of the peculiar risk doctrine, concluding that it does not extend to hired contractor’s employees. The Court reasoned that because the Workers’ Compensation Act shields an independent contractor from tort liability to its employees, applying the peculiar risk doctrine to the independent contractor’s employees would illogically and unfairly subject the hiring person to greater liability than that faced by the independent contractor whose negligence caused the employee’s injury. This principle however is subject to many exceptions and the scope of those exceptions is expanding.

For example, in 2018, California’s Second District Court of Appeals heard the case of Gonzalez v. Mathis, 20 Cal. App. 5th 257 which focused on the “hazardous conditions” exception. In reviewing a lower Court’s ruling on a Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court analyzed scope of this exception as it pertained to a concealed hazard. Generally when there is a known safety hazard on a hirer’s premises that can be addressed through reasonable safety precautions on the part of the independent contractor the hirer delegates the responsibility to take such precautions to the contractor, and is not liable to the contractor’s employee if the contractor fails to do so. See Kinsman v. Unocal Corp., 37 Cal.4th 659, 673-674 (2005). However, if the hazard is concealed from the contractor, but known to the landowner, liability may attach. The recent Gonzalez case took this exception further and held that while generally a hirer cannot be held liable for injuries resulting from open or known hazards the contractor could have remedied through the adoption of reasonable safety precautions, similarly the hirer can be held liable when he or she exposes a contractor (or its employees) to a known hazard that cannot be remedied through reasonable safety precautions. Thus the hazardous conditions exception seems to apply not only to concealed conditions, but obvious conditions if the contractor cannot remedy the condition. This holding widens the number of exceptions to Privette’s rule of “no liability” for landowners.

Oregon

Recent case law in Oregon has similarly limited the scope of this exclusion. In the case of Bundy v. NuStar GP, LLC, 362 Ore. 282, Oregon’s Supreme Court analyzed ORS 656.019 to determine whether the “claim” includes subsequent claims. ORS 656.019 states, “an injured worker may pursue a civil negligence action for a work-related injury that has been determined to be not compensable because the worker has failed to establish that a work-related incident was the major contributing cause of the worker’s injury only after an order determining that the claim is not compensable has become final.” The questions this Court considered was whether “the claim” refers to the initial claim for workers compensation only, or whether it includes subsequent claims. In Bundy the Plaintiff initially received workers compensation for injuries sustained while working, but later claims were denied workers compensation and thus Plaintiff sought recovery for these subsequent claims via civil litigation. The defense argued that as Plaintiff received workers compensation for his injuries initially, such compensation was his exclusive remedy. The Supreme Court disagreed and agreed with Plaintiff that a single work-place incident can give rise to multiple individual “claims.” Accordingly, the workers compensation exclusion has been limited in Oregon in that the same workplace injury can give rise to both workers compensation claims, and civil lawsuits.

In sum, while hirers are often categorically immune from liability for injuries to its employees or employees of its independent contractors when workers’ compensation insurance is available, various jurisdictions are expanding on, or limiting this application.

Four M&C Attorneys Named to Southern California Rising Stars List

/in ,

Murchison & Cumming, LLP is pleased to announce that Partners Kelsey Maxwell, Joshua Praw, and Tina Vo and Associate Partner Georgiana Nikias have been selected to the 2022 Southern California Rising Stars list. This is an exclusive list, recognizing no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in Southern California.

Kelsey L. Maxwell is a Partner in the Los Angeles office focusing her practice on the areas of general liability, product liability and specialty tort including habitability and discrimination claims. She is a graduate of The University of Arizona (B.A.) and Chapman University, Dale E. Fowler School of Law (J.D.).

Joshua W. Praw is a Partner in the Los Angeles office focusing his practice in the area of commercial general liability, products liability, construction defect, and toxic tort. Mr. Praw is a graduate of University of San Diego School of Law (J.D.) and University of Wisconsin – Madison (B.A. in History).

Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Praw Co-Chair the firm’s Summer Associate Program and Post-Bar Law Clerk Program where they train, mentor, and oversee the firm’s summer associates and post-bar law clerks.

Tina H. Vo is a Partner in the Los Angeles office. She has experience in products liability, business torts, commercial, and transportation litigation. Ms. Vo is a graduate of Florida Atlantic University (B.A.) and University of Miami School of Law (J.D.). Ms. Vo is a member of the California and Florida bars.

Georgiana A. Nikias is an Associate Partner in the Los Angeles office. She has experience in business litigation, employment law, products liability, general liability, art law, IP litigation, and commercial real estate litigation. Ms. Nikias is a graduate of the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law (B.A. and J.D.) and Oxford University (M.St.).

Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.

Two Murchison & Cumming Women Attorneys Named to Southern California Rising Stars List

/in ,

Murchison & Cumming, LLP is pleased to announce that Partner Kelsey Maxwell and Associate Partner Georgiana Nikias, have been selected to the 2021 Southern California Rising Stars list. This is an exclusive list, recognizing no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in Southern California.

Kelsey L. Maxwell is a Partner in the Los Angeles office. Ms. Maxwell focuses her practice on the areas of general liability, entertainment, product liability and specialty tort including habitability and discrimination claims. She is a graduate of The University of Arizona (B.A.) and Chapman University, Dale E. Fowler School of Law (J.D.). Ms. Maxwell started with the firm as a summer associate at M&C’s Orange County office in 2012 and 2013 continuing on as an attorney in Los Angeles beginning in 2014.

Georgiana A. Nikias is an Associate Partner in the Los Angeles office. She has experience in business litigation, employment law, products liability, general liability, art law, and commercial real estate litigation. Ms. Nikias is a graduate of the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law (B.A. and J.D.) and Oxford University (M.St.). She is involved in her community through fundraising events for various charity groups and serving on her Homeowner’s Association Board.

Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.

Murchison & Cumming Names New Partner in the Los Angeles Office

/in

Murchison & Cumming, LLP is pleased to announce that Kelsey L. Maxwell has been elevated to Partner. Kelsey focuses her practice on the areas of general liability, product liability and specialty tort including habitability and discrimination claims. Kelsey approaches every case with a fresh perspective, always considering what particular course of action would be best for her clients – whether they are individuals or large companies. She prides herself on working with clients who are new to litigation, and easing their fears and anxieties during what can be a stressful experience.

“We are very proud to welcome Kelsey to our partnership. We look forward to a long and successful tenure at our firm,” said Dan L. Longo, Managing Partner.

Kelsey is a graduate of The University of Arizona (B.A.) and Chapman University, Dale E. Fowler School of Law (J.D.). She started with the firm as a summer associate at M&C’s Orange County office in 2012 and 2013 continuing on as a post-bar clerk in Los Angeles beginning in 2014. Having started undergraduate school at 17 and graduating in three years, she passed the California Bar Exam at only 23 and became a practicing attorney at M&C that same year. Among her many accomplishments, Kelsey is most proud of being a wife and new mom to her one year old son.

Four Murchison & Cumming Attorneys Named to Southern California Rising Stars List

/in ,

Murchison & Cumming, LLP is pleased to announce that Partner Tina Vo and Associates Suzanna Harman, Kelsey Maxwell, and Tyler Sanchez have been selected to the 2020 Southern California Rising Stars list. This is an exclusive list, recognizing no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in Southern California.

Tina H. Vo is a Partner in the Los Angeles office. She has experience in products liability, business torts, commercial, entertainment, employment, and commercial trucking defense litigation. Throughout her career, Ms. Vo has represented clients ranging from corporations and insurance companies, to premises liability defendants and contractors.

Suzanna R. Harman is an Associate in the Los Angeles office focusing her practice on Law & Motion. She has always enjoyed being able to assist others in amicably resolving their disputes and rising to the occasion when there is a group that needs a voice. Her clients know that she will focus intently on their case and make sure that they understand exactly what is going on, during what can be one of the most stressful times of their lives.

Kelsey L. Maxwell is an Associate in the Los Angeles. Ms. Maxwell focuses her practice on the areas of general liability, and specialty tort including habitability and discrimination claims. Ms. Maxwell routinely seeks to resolve cases through dispositive motions and has found success with these motions both in the courtroom and as leverage to encourage early resolution.

Tyler E. Sanchez is an Associate in the Los Angeles office. Tyler regularly represents insurance carriers in complex insurance and bad faith litigation matters. His clients have come to appreciate his disciplined approach to resolving their matters. He is committed to developing and honing his ability to think creatively in order to mitigate potential exposures.

Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.

Nuances of Defending Cases Involving Transportation Network Companies

/in

By: Kelsey L. Maxwell

USLAW Magazine

View Link

As ride shares become more prevalent, it follows that Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) will become an increasingly popular target for litigation. While liability issues may be clear-cut in a simple auto negligence matter, liability for TNCs becomes murky when drivers engage in separate misconduct such as driving under the influence or engaging in sexual assault. In most states, common defenses in these matters include (1) a lack of an employment relationship between the TNC and driver, (2) assertions that the driver’s conduct is outside the scope of employment, and (3) assertions that TNCs cannot be held liable for negligent hiring or supervision if they did not, and reasonably should not have known about prior misconduct.

Drivers Are Independent Contractors

In California, while a corporation may be held vicariously liable as a principal for the torts of its agents, the converse is true that if an individual is deemed to be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee, vicarious liability will not attach. Typically in cases involving TNCs, California courts have held that the tortfeasor’s employment status is a question of fact.

The factors a court uses to determine independent contractorship include (1) the right to control the work; (2) the alleged employee’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on his managerial skill; (3) the alleged employee’s investment in equipment or materials required for his task; (4) whether the service rendered requires a special skill; (5) the degree of permanence of the working relationship; and (6) whether the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged employer’s business. For TNCs, the important factors favoring an independent contractor designation include the fact that typically, drivers are paid per ride (as opposed to a salary), drivers provide their own vehicles and auto insurance, and drivers can choose their own hours and length of work. It is often highlighted as one of the perks to working for TNCs that drivers can be their own boss and make money on their own terms.

In a recent case involving a Grubhub driver who also worked for Lyft and Uber, the Ninth Circuit Court found that the factor of at will termination does not weigh in favor of an employment relationship because the right was mutual. In further support of a defense to the control argument, the Ninth Circuit held that a mutual termination provision with 30 days’ notice and a one-year term was consistent with an independent contractor relationship because “the designated impermanency of the relationship supports a finding of independent contractor status.” That being said, California cases have cited factors such as the company controlling rates and routes, and imposing rules regarding the cleanliness of vehicles as well as prohibited contact with customers as indicative of an employee relationship.

Alternatively, in states such as Nevada, drivers for TNCs are classified as independent contractors working commercially when they carry paying passengers. As such, TNCs have a benefit from the outset that there is no employer/employee relationship presumed.

As various jurisdictions differ on this issue, TNCs should monitor case law across the country and weigh the options of adjusting policies to further support the position that the drivers are independent contractors in the states where the issue is a question of fact.

Driver’s Conduct is Outside the Course and Scope of Employment Relationship

A second defense available to TNCs when a driver engages in misconduct, is the argument that the driver’s tortious actions were outside the course and scope of the employment relationship. In determining whether an individual’s actions were within the course and scope of his employment relationship, California courts have held that “respondeat superior liability does not attach simply because employment brought the employee and victim together at a certain time and place. The employee’s activities must be inherent in, typical of or created by the work so that it is a foreseeable risk of the particular employment.” Typically, whether the tort occurred within the scope of employment is a question of fact.

In cases of intoxicated drivers, factors to consider include whether the incident occurred during working hours and whether the alcohol consumption was done in a manner which benefited the employer. In the cases of sexual misconduct, factors to consider include whether the TNC app was in use at the time of the assault and whether the sexual assault is determined to be incidental to the operation of the business.

Transportation Network Companies Cannot Be Held Liable For Negligent Hiring Where a Driver Does Not Have a Known History of Misconduct

A third defense TNCs may rely on in cases of driver misconduct is the defense that the company should not be liable for negligent hiring where there is no known history of misconduct. For example, in California in the Doe v. Uber Techs., Inc. matter, the Court granted Uber’s motion to dismiss as to one driver when Plaintiffs did not allege that anything existed in the driver’s background that Uber knew or should have known and that should have prevented Uber’s approval of the driver. However, the motion to dismiss was denied as to the second driver where a 7-year background check revealed no misconduct, but the driver had a domestic violence conviction 12 years earlier.

In some jurisdictions, TNCs face additional requirements for operation including insurance coverage and fingerprint based background checks. Thus in order to decrease liability for negligent hiring and supervision claims, TNCs must comply with extensive background check requirements.

More states are now requiring TNCs to conduct background checks on each driver applicant and also requiring that they perform an additional check every so often. However, some of these same states allow for the sealing of certain criminal records statutory time limits. Thus, even by employing these additional measures to verify driver backgrounds, an added layer of uncertainty still exists. As such, TNCs should conduct comprehensive background checks on potential drivers to ensure that any potential past misconduct is known prior to permitting the individual to become a driver.

Additional Considerations Regarding Punitive Damages

In certain circumstances, an employer may be liable for punitive damages based upon an employee’s wrongful actions such as when the employer had advance knowledge that the employee was unfit, the employer expressly authorized or ratified the conduct or the employer is personally guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.

A common defense to suits that allege driver misconduct is that the Plaintiff’s claims arise solely from the misconduct of the driver. Thus, employers should take prompt steps to stop the behavior to avoid the perception of inadequate investigation. By ride share companies promptly responding to allegations of driver misconduct , they can avoid exposure to liability.

Conclusion

As Uber, Lyft, and other TNCs continue to increase in popularity, so does the litigation surrounding their use. One would be amiss to simply consider this ever-developing type of litigation to be no different than any other traditional case. Defense counsel must be aware of the fact-sensitive liability defenses, and the companies should take proactive steps to limit liability based on the emerging case law.

Murchison & Cumming Attorney Kelsey Maxwell Named to Southern California Rising Stars List

/in ,

Murchison & Cumming, LLP is pleased to announce that Associate Kelsey L. Maxwell has been selected to the 2019 Southern California Rising Stars list. This is an exclusive list, recognizing no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in Southern California.

Ms. Maxwell focuses her practice on the areas of general liability, and specialty tort including habitability and discrimination claims. Her desire to help people and advocate for those that need assistance has allowed her clients to expect first rate responsiveness and customer service. She goes above and beyond to be sure that matters can be resolved quickly and efficiently to best suit her client’s needs. Ms. Maxwell routinely seeks to resolve cases through dispositive motions and has found success with these motions both in the courtroom and as leverage to encourage early resolution. In a recent case, she had a products liability case dismissed right before trial on a motion on limine which was later upheld on appeal.

Ms. Maxwell is a graduate of The University of Arizona (B.A.) and Chapman University, Dale E. Fowler School of Law (J.D.). Ms. Maxwell’s father is also a defense attorney and observing him while growing up was a key factor to her becoming a lawyer. Having started undergraduate school at 17 and graduating in three years, she passed the California Bar Exam at only 23 years old and became a practicing attorney that same year.

Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.