The complexity of a case, rather than its size, often dictates the level of skill and resources necessary for success. Attorneys must be prepared to consider complicated legal issues in light of the testimony of tens or hundreds of witnesses, thousands of documents and fact patterns spanning decades. Such cases also frequently involve multiple courts in multiple jurisdictions, and may require months or years of trial preparation, including numerous court filings, multi-day depositions and multiple expert witnesses. Successful representation requires that the extensive bank of data compiled in connection with the case be reduced to a concise and compelling presentation for a judge or jury.
When complex cases are handled by large national or regional firms, as many as 20 or 30 attorneys, with varying levels of expertise and experience, may become involved. These attorneys often develop only a passing familiarity with certain, limited aspects of the case as it goes to trial. When such a case is managed by a smaller, more focused litigation firm, the entire firm becomes intimately involved with the case on a day-to-day basis, developing familiarity and expertise with the case as a whole. Thus, the two or three lead lawyers who ultimately face the judge or jury as advocates for the client have the breadth and depth of knowledge and experience with the case to present the facts clearly and concisely. At Magleby Cataxinos & Greenwood, a small firm focused on complex litigation, senior members of the firm are closely involved with all aspects of a case, from the time of the initial case review through trial and, if applicable, appeals.
The November 19, 2009, Memorandum Decision and Order of Contempt issued in the case of ClearOne Communications, Inc. v. Andrew Chiang, et al., No. 2:07cv37 TC, in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, discusses one such large and complicated case handled by Magleby Cataxinos & Greenwood, and details the complexity of the technology and procedure involved in such litigation.
During preparation and trial, the firm maximizes efficiency and access to information while reducing costs through the use of technology, including much of the same sophisticated software found at national firms. However, by limiting the number of people involved in the process, the firm is able to carefully control quality. Technology is never considered a substitute for a lawyer or well-trained legal assistants who actually read the documents, classify the information, interview the witnesses, research the law, develop strategies, and try cases. For more information please contact the firm's Salt Lake City office.
Attorneys at the firm are prepared to handle complex business disputes and intellectual property litigation, including:
- Securities litigation
- Theft of trade secrets
- Breach of fiduciary duty
- Breach of contract