The firm’s Appellate Practice group focuses on leveraging the firm’s substantive and practical experience to provide clients with effective, result oriented, post trial representation.
The firm’s long history of appellate practice includes representing the prevailing parties in the text book Constitutional cases, Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) (prayer in schools) and Lemon v. Kurtzman , 403 U.S. 602 (1971) (expenditure of public funds in religious schools). Today we represent clients who require appellate counsel with expertise in the areas of products liability, mass torts, telecommunications law, insurance, legal and bioethics, and family law. Drinker’s appellate lawyers are frequently called upon to provide practical, independent and time-critical reviews of substantial adverse verdicts in order to permit clients and their insurers to make informed evaluations of post-trial options.
Alan Lazarus, Bradley Andreozzi, Ken Wilbur and Alfred Putnam lead the firm’s Appellate Practice group.
Alan Lazarus clerked for Hon. Cecil F. Poole of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He has acted as lead counsel on appeal in over twenty cases in the State Courts of California and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Many of the cases have been appeals relating to product liability claims. Recent cases in which he led the firm’s engagements as lead counsel include:
-
LeBeau v. Roxane Labs., Inc. , 2003 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 4649 (4th App. Dist.)
-
Reyes v. Ford Motor Co. , 2003 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5329 (1st App. Dist.)
-
In re Needles Cases , 2003 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 549 (6th App. Dist.)
-
Calise v. Ethicon, Inc. , 2004 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 6166 (4th App. Dist.)
-
Yun v. Ethicon, Inc., 65 Fed. Appx. 644; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 11367 (9th Cir.)
-
In re Surgical Sutures Cases II (Cotter) , 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 10848 (1st App. Dist.)
-
Klima v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc. , 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8973 (1st App. Dist)
-
City of Modesto Redevelopment Agency v. Superior Court , 119 Cal.App.4th 28 (2004)
-
Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgical, Inc. , 112 Cal.App.4th 1572 (2003), Review Granted 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 857 (2004)
Alfred Putnam clerked for the Honorable Arlin M. Adams of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Known for somewhat unusual briefs in unusual cases, recent representations led by Mr. Putnam include:
-
The Chester County Historic Preservation Network in the Ten Commandments case, Freethought Society v. Chester County, 334 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2003) and, most recently, in the Supreme Court in a similar Texas case, Van Orden v. Perry, U.S. No. 03-1500 (pending).
-
The family shareholders in Warehime v. Warehime before both the Superior Court, 777 A.2d 469 (Pa. Supr. 2001) and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 860 A.2d 41 (Pa. 2004).
-
The Philadelphia Parking Authority in litigation against the City of Philadelphia in both the Commonwealth Court and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
-
A wrongly terminated Little Orphan Annie in Pacitti v. Macy’s, 193 F.3d 766 (3d Cir. 1999).
-
Retired partners of a law firm in the leading Pennsylvania case on attempted modification of lawyers’ pensions. Abbott v. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP, 805 A.2d 547 (Pa. Supr. 2002), allocatur denied, 827 A.2d. 1200 (Pa. 2003).
Ken Wilbur clerked for the Honorable Alan B. Handler of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Mr. Wilbur has been particularly active in telecommunications cases in the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and in the appellate Courts of New Jersey. Mr. Wilbur's representations include:
-
Cellular Telephone Company v. North Bergen Bd. Of Adj., No. 04-3221 (3d Cir.) (pending). Representation of Cingular Wireless before Third Circuit in appeal concerning claims under New Jersey zoning law and §704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
-
New York SMSA, LP v. Mendham Bd. Of Adj., 181 N.J. 387 (2004) Representation of Verizon Wireless in appeal before Supreme Court of New Jersey affirming reversal of denial of application or wireless facility under prohibition of services provision of §704.
-
Omnipoint Comm. Ent. v Easttown Tp., 331 F.3d 386 (3d Cir.), cert. denied 540 U.S. 1108 (2003) Representation of AT&T Wireless Services and Verizon wireless as amici before the Third Circuit and United States Supreme Court on elements of prohibition of services claim under §704.
-
Cellular Telephone Company v. Ho-Ho-Kus, 197 F.3d 64 (3rd Cir. 1999). Representation of Verizon Wireless in appeal before the Third Circuit reversing denial of application for Wireless facility on grounds that denial violated §704.
-
Berman v. Allen, 80 N.J. 421 (1979). Representation of defendant in claims for wrongful life and wrongful birth.
Brad Andreozzi has represented clients in virtually every federal appellate court, including the U.S. Supreme Court. His notable appellate engagements include a death penalty case won before the Supreme Court and significant commercial cases before the First, Second, Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Circuits, as well as the Illinois Supreme Court. In addition to briefing and arguing appeals, Mr. Andreozzi advises trial counsel on how to use the trial to create, preserve and enhance issues for appeal.