Firm Announces Hiring of Professionals in New York and Dallas
July 26, 2021 – Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors announced the hiring of two professionals in the New York and Dallas offices.
David Partida joins the firm as a senior associate in the New York office. He most recently worked as an associate in the San Francisco office of Hanson Bridgett LLP. He received his Juris Doctor degree from Columbia Law School and a bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Notre Dame.
Katherine Kus joins the Dallas office as an investigator. She previously worked as an information analyst at Digital Intelligence Systems. She received a master of science in health studies degree and a master of library science degree from Texas Woman’s University, and a bachelor’s degree in biology from Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi.
Brewer News Release - Chrysler Faces Conspiracy and Breach of Contract Claims by Texas Dealership Owner
Dallas, Texas…July 19, 2021 – Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors announced that its client Richard C. Poe II, a fourth generation retail automobile dealer from Texas, filed a federal lawsuit in Michigan against FCA US LLC, formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC (“Chrysler”), accusing the automotive company of joining a conspiracy to damage Poe and unlawfully profiting from doing so.
Poe is from El Paso, Texas, and owns an interest in the oldest Chrysler dealership in Texas through Poe Management, Inc. (“PMI”). Filed on July 19, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the lawsuit alleges “a betrayal of that historic business relationship between the Poe family and Chrysler” in which Chrysler joined a conspiracy seeking to prevent Poe from controlling the two Chrysler automotive dealerships. Poe’s great grandfather A.B. Poe opened what is now the oldest Chrysler dealership in Texas in 1928.
PMI is the general partner of the two Limited Partnership plaintiffs that own the Poe family dealerships in El Paso: Dick Poe Motors, L.P., a Texas limited partnership that owns the Dick Poe Chrysler/Jeep dealership, and Dick Poe Dodge, L.P., a Texas limited partnership that owns the Dick Poe Dodge/Ram dealership.
The lawsuit alleges that Chrysler joined the conspiracy against Poe by disregarding his legal rights, acting to limit his access to information, allowing a change in management without following proper procedures, and benefitting from the underlying conspiracy. The suit seeks millions in damages.
“As the rightful owner of these longtime Chrysler automotive dealerships, Richard Poe II believes Chrysler’s betrayal cost him millions in damages,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel to Poe. “Our client believes Chrysler helped effect an improper change of control of the dealerships, so it could benefit from the sale of lucrative ‘reinsurance’ products that were previously underwritten by companies owned by Poe.”
The lawsuit alleges that Anthony E. Bock, a certified public accountant who worked for Poe’s father Dick Poe, abused his fiduciary relationship and joined a conspiracy with the intent to remove Poe from control over the dealerships in order to enrich the corporation. The lawsuit alleges that the others involved in the conspiracy were Karen G. Castro, the former office manager for Dick Poe, Paul O. Sergent, a lawyer who represented the Poes for several years; and Gery A. Reckelbus, a dealership manager.
According to the complaint, 10 days before his death in May 2015, Dick Poe caused an illegal share issuance from PMI that resulted in Richard Poe II becoming a minority shareholder. The lawsuit alleges that within days of Dick Poe’s death, Bock and Castro were named co-independent executors of Dick Poe’s estate in a will that was prepared by Sergent. Bock and Castro subsequently appointed themselves directors of PMI. They then moved to remove Richard Poe II from control over PMI and “unlawfully obtained” Chrysler’s approval of Reckelbus as the “dealer principal” for the dealerships in question.
The lawsuit asserts that Chrysler worked with the conspirators and aided them with their tortious acts by refusing to respond to correspondence from Richard Poe II or his attorneys, refusing to meet with Richard Poe II, and refusing to send notices to Richard Poe II as required by law and by contractual agreements, among other actions.
“Chrysler repeatedly failed and refused to communicate with Richard; failed, on multiple occasions, to respond to voice mails and written communications from Richard and his attorneys; and repeatedly obfuscated its internal decision process and reasons (if any) for denying Richard his rightful place as the successor of the historic, nearly 100-year-old family business,” the complaint alleges.
The lawsuit alleges seven causes of action: a breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, tortious interference with dealership sales and service agreements, tortious interference with prospective business relationships, fraudulent concealment and fraud by non-disclosure, conversion, and civil conspiracy.
The lawsuit states, “Chrysler chose not to communicate with Richard and answer his questions. Instead, Chrysler cut Richard out of the loop and began engaging in other tortious conduct with the Relevant Non-Party conspirators.” The lawsuit alleges that with the change of control effected by Chrysler, the conspirators stopped purchasing vehicle protection products that were underwritten by Richard Poe II. Instead, defendants funneled those sales to Chrysler.
“Our client aims to hold Chrysler accountable for its alleged role in this scheme, and to also shine a bright light on the company’s business dealings with dealership owners across the country,” Brewer says.
Brewer Firm Featured in Law360 Reporting: Competing With Big Law
On July 12, 2021, Law360 highlighted Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors as among a group of leading boutique law firms who compete with Big Law. The article, “How Boutique Firms Kept In Front of The BigLaw Salary War,” explores how boutiques compete for top talent through compensation and professional opportunity.
The article mentions that Brewer raised salaries in June for first-year starting associates to $205,000 – and also increased pay for other lawyers, consultants and professionals at the firm.
"We aim to keep our salaries commensurate with the demands on the professionals, which is at the highest level," Brewer Partner William Brewer told Law360. He added that that the firm employs many in-house business professionals, including consulting experts, investigators and communications specialists.
"We don't wait till the end of the day to figure out what the experts are going to say about cases," Brewer said. "We have those professionals in-house to start thinking through those issues that are typically only handled by outside consultants or experts."
Brewer added that this means young lawyers can “be the captain on a case” early on in their career.
Brewer Firm Increases First-Year Associate Salaries to $205,000; Announces Other Compensation Increases
June 14, 2021 – The Brewer firm today announced that, effective July 1, 2021, first-year associate salaries will increase to $205,000. Also, the firm announced that many other lawyers, consultants, and other professionals will receive salary increases, based on merit and tenure. Adjustments in the firm’s compensation model are designed to benefit professionals at all levels of the organization.
In a communication to firm professionals, managing partner William A. Brewer III said the adjustments reflect the hard work and many contributions made by firm professionals over the recent past. Brewer recognized that many professionals had made “sacrifices to ensure that the firm continues to provide the brand of advocacy for which it has always been known.”
Several media outlets, including American Lawyer, Law 360, Above the Law, and Reuters reported on the firm announcement. Commenting on the firm’s compensation model, Brewer told American Lawyer, “Our environment is designed to be performance-based and progressive. Those who practice here welcome a future they define, versus being bound to a ‘track’ during the formative years of their career.”
Slovak National Team Students Crowned Champion of International Public Policy Forum Debate Contest
Slovak National Team in Bratislava, Slovakia, bested a field of high schools from around the globe Saturday, May 1, winning the 20th Annual Brewer Foundation/New York University International Public Policy Forum (IPPF) debate competition. As the IPPF World Champion, Slovak National Team wins a $10,000 grand prize.
The IPPF is a one-of-a-kind academic collaboration between a law firm’s charitable foundation and a major university. Founded in 2001 by the Brewer Foundation, and now jointly administered by NYU, the IPPF is the only competition that gives high school students around the world the opportunity to engage in written and oral debates on issues of public policy.
The IPPF Finals took place virtually in 2021 for the first time in the competition’s history due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Competing teams were the final “Elite Eight” to emerge from a field of 180 teams, representing high schools in 19 countries and 25 U.S. states. The teams debated the topic: “Resolved: The benefits of artificial intelligence outweigh the harms.”
“Despite the challenges presented by the pandemic, these students participated in the IPPF and prevailed – attaining the title of IPPF World Champion,” said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and founder of the IPPF. “They impressed the judges with their research, writing and advocacy skills as they dealt with the issue of artificial intelligence. We are proud to celebrate the Slovak National Team and the thousands of students who took part in the IPPF’s 20th annual competition.”
In the IPPF Finals, Slovak National Team advanced over Peak to Peak Charter School from Lafayette, Colorado, in the quarterfinal round and Potomac Oak from Rockville, Maryland, in the semifinal round, before facing Montgomery Blair High School from Silver Spring, Maryland, in the IPPF Finals.
The Slovak team was represented by students Martin Janco, Soňa Koniarová, Ema Križanová, Anfisa Kryvtsun, Natália Michalcová, Tereza Okálová, Ina Opartyová, Timotej Oršula, and Mário Valek. The team was coached by Timofej Kožuchov and Samuel Nvota.
As runner-up team, Montgomery Blair High School receives a $3,500 prize. Coached by Leigh Tinsley, the team members were Jonathan Wen, Alex Jiang, and Shariar Vaez-Ghaemi.
To learn more about the IPPF, visit www.ippfdebate.com.
Media Reports on Teams Advancing to IPPF Finals
Several media outlets reported on teams of high school students advancing to the International Public Policy Forum (IPPF) Finals, a global debate contest sponsored by the Brewer Foundation and New York University.
Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors Partner and IPPF founder William A. Brewer III says, “Despite the challenges students around the globe are facing due to the pandemic, these students chose to participate in a rigorous academic competition and have excelled. We look forward to seeing them compete — and celebrating their achievement — during the IPPF Finals.”
The Troy Times reported that a team from Troy High School in Michigan advanced to the finals, oral debates which will take place virtually.
“It’s been a unique experience, because we’ve faced three teams so far, and each team has been almost entirely different," said Troy High School senior Sohan Vittalam. "Even if we go in with the same sides, the arguments they make are entirely new, and it’s a very adaptive competition. I think the different viewpoints, you can tell the different things groups prioritize."
Colorado Hometown Weekly reported on a team from Peak to Peak Charter School in Colorado advancing to the finals.
“I think it was kind of surreal,” said Peak to Peak junior Alvina Zhang. “It was a lot of hours of work and having to have a lot of brainpower and dedication to the essays, so I think it really paid off in the end.”
Brewer Storefront News Release - ADA Lawsuit Filed Against The Lamplighter School
Dallas, TX… April 6, 2021 – Brewer Storefront announced that its clients James and Michelle Hardt filed a lawsuit against The Lamplighter School in Dallas, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.
The Hardts filed the lawsuit on April 5, 2021, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, on behalf of their daughter, who was denied re-enrollment at the independent school after being diagnosed with dyslexia and a speech and language disorder. The lawsuit alleges negligence and breach of contract.
“The Lamplighter School portrays itself as welcoming and inclusive, but our clients believe that is a false representation when their child was asked to leave the school after being diagnosed with a learning disability,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer Storefront and counsel to plaintiffs. “Our clients believe the school failed their child – and the principles upon which it claims to operate as an educational institution.”
Brewer Storefront is the community-service legal affiliate of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors.
According to the complaint, the child was enrolled at Lamplighter for the 2017-18 school year and attended the school for three years. She was denied re-enrollment for the 2020-21 school year. The complaint alleges that the school failed to adequately monitor the child’s academic development and did not make accommodations in response to her learning needs.
According to the school website, Lamplighter’s mission statement states that “Dedicated to igniting the potential of each child, Lamplighter engages children in the joy of learning through intellectual discovery in a creative, inclusive, and collaborative environment.” The school also promotes a “statement of inclusion.”
According to the complaint, “Lamplighter simply neglected its obligations to accommodate the Child’s disabilities and directed the Child to leave and go to a different school.”
The complaint continued, “Furthermore, the re-enrollment denial occurred after a documented, contractually agreed upon deadline for making such decisions – abandoning the Child and her family at a critical juncture in the Child’s formative years.”
The complaint alleges that Lamplighter violated Title III of the ADA when it discriminated against the child because of the child’s disability. The complaint alleged that Lamplighter discriminated against the child by failing to reasonably accommodate the child and denying her enrollment in Lamplighter’s educational programs, and by denying the child the ability to participate in on-site therapy to remediate her disabilities, among other actions.
“We believe this case is important for not only our daughter, but also all families who advocate for children with learning disabilities,” says James Hardt. “We believe accommodations could have been made in this instance, and we hope they will be made going forward for families who entrust Lamplighter with the education of their children.”
Joining William A. Brewer III in representing plaintiffs is attorney Efrain Vera.
Law360 Reports on LGBT Bias Suit Brought By Bankruptcy Attorney
On March 31, 2021, Law360 reported that Brewer client Trey A. Monsour, who is a prominent bankruptcy attorney, brought a lawsuit in Texas federal court against the law firm Polsinelli PC, accusing the firm of discriminating against him based on his sexual orientation.
Mr. Monsour, a former partner at the firm who is gay, alleged that the firm began discriminating against him after he was hired as a partner in the firm's Houston office in 2017.
William A. Brewer III, who represents Monsour in the suit, said in a statement that his client is suing "to expose what he believes is a troubling pattern of discrimination based on sexual orientation at Polsinelli -- and to champion a call for diversity, tolerance and inclusion in the legal industry."
Law360 reported that according to the lawsuit filing, "Whereas almost all newly hired partners were invariable provided with associate and administrative support, the firm denied Mr. Monsour these basic resources, despite his repeated appeals to management for help. The suit alleges that firm leaders also made "derogatory comments" regarding gay employees and that Monsour felt "isolated and without recourse."