Complex Litigation

Overview

For over forty years, Hollingsworth LLP has focused its practice on complex litigation matters, handling nationally important complex litigation in every area in which we practice. It is routine for us to handle cases in which there is a federal MDL, one or more consolidated state proceedings, multiple class actions in various jurisdictions, and aggressive plaintiffs’ attorneys pushing individual unconsolidated cases to trial as fast as possible in hellhole jurisdictions. We have the experience and resources to manage situations in which the other side is attacking on all fronts, and the ability to turn things around quickly.

Nationally recognized as a “go-to” litigation firm for our work on complex, high-stakes cases, we are often sought out by in-house counsel, and sometimes other law firms, who have become overwhelmed by such cases. Having successfully tried difficult cases across the country, our record of success is reflected in the more than 240 reported federal and state cases in which we have been lead counsel. We have argued before federal and state courts nationwide and do not shy away from going toe-to-toe with plaintiffs’ counsel in their preferred home-turf courthouses. This is just one reason we were named to BTI’s “22 Best of the Best Law Firms in Product Liability Litigation.” BTI also recognized Hollingsworth LLP as “punching way above their weight,” on its List of Midsize Firms, noting that Hollingsworth attorneys “[are] skilled and empathetic listeners, know their way around the issues, understand how to help, and get things done.”

We have created key industry precedent in many of our litigations and pioneered important developments in the law critical to corporate tort defendants and are recognized by Chambers USA as “an extraordinarily strong firm in the area of complex litigation, both at the trial and appellate levels.” Precedents of which we are most proud include five widely cited U.S. circuit court Daubert decisions: (Rider v. Sandoz (11th Cir. prescription drug); Hollander v. Sandoz (10th Cir. prescription drug); Glastetter v. Novartis (8th Cir. prescription drug); Schudel v. GE (9th Cir. solvents); and Conde v. Velsicol (6th Cir. pesticide)), the first three of which legal scholars refer to as the “Parlodel Trilogy” that represents the key to litigating against junk science in the 21st Century.