Firm Overview

Lynch Rowin LLP's roots go back to the mid-1970's and the seminal antitrust case, Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 US 574 (1986). Thomas P. Lynch and Marc Rowin were at the Mudge Rose Guthrie & Alexander and Rosenman & Colin law firms respectively, representing two of the corporate defendants. While working on the complex evidentiary and constitutional issues which have made the decisions in that case among the most cited rulings ever In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 631 F.2d 1069 (3rd Cir. 1980); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.,513 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Pa. 1981); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., 478 F.Supp. 889 (E.D.Pa. 1979), they learned the value of intense dedication to their clients' affairs and practicing law to a high standard of excellence.

In August 1981, with two other lawyers from Mudge Rose, Tom and Marc formed Lynch Rowin Burnbaum & Crystal, creating a unique civil litigation practice blending the skills learned at their Wall Street firms with the courtroom experience of trial lawyers. Their cases have spanned a wide-range of substantive areas, including commercial, product liability, contracts, securities, real estate and environmental (civil and criminal) matters.

Lynch Rowin LLP was formed in January 2000. By using leading edge technology, we are able to be cost conscious while maintaining high quality work. While most of our cases have been in state and federal courts within the New York City metropolitan region, we have represented clients in the courts of other states, including California, Florida, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

What Sets Us Apart

We believe that Lynch Rowin LLP is a unique law firm, both in the nature of our experience and the way we try to be proactive and innovative to advance our clients' goals.

Experience

Our involvement in products liability and other tort cases has given our practice a dimension---extensive trial experience, which is rare among commercial litigation firms. Because most cases are disposed of by motion or settlement, many corporate litigators have tried few, if any, cases. Most of our cases are disposed of at the pretrial stage, but a significant percentage of them go to trial. In 1999, for example, Tom and Marc selected a total of 17 juries. During the last 12 years, we have tried approximately 30 cases to verdict. Virtually all of these trials resulted in favorable verdicts for our clients.

This actual trial experience has enhanced every aspect of our litigation practice. It allows us to conduct discovery with an experienced view towards what is needed to prepare a case for trial. More importantly, we have the confidence to know that if a case is not disposed of at the pretrial stage, we will be able to carry it to its ultimate conclusion in a courtroom.

We have an active appellate practice and have been involved in a number of cases which have raised cutting-edge legal issues. Kimmell v. Schaefer, 89 N.Y.2d 257, 675 N.E.2d 450, 652 N.Y.S.2d 715 (1996); Laino v. Cuprum S.A. de C.V., 235 A.D.2d 25, 663 N.Y.S.2d 275 (2d Dept. 1997); Azoulay v. Cassin, 512 N.Y.S.2d 900, 103 A.D.2d 836 (2d Dept. 1984).

Both Tom Lynch and Marc Rowin have been selected as official arbitrators for the compulsory arbitration program in the Eastern District of New York. Tom has lectured extensively on civil practice issues, including Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael,526 US 137 (1999) and Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579 (1993). Marc has been retained as an expert witness in two cases in which the adequacy of attorney services has been an issue. The quality of Marc's work has been singled out for recognition. Recently, in awarding attorneys fees to one of Lynch Rowin's clients following a hearing on damages, Justice Diane A. Lebedeff of New York County Supreme Court said that Marc's "conduct of the trial was impeccable." (Extract v. Board of Managers of Beaumont Condominium, Index No. 112189/98, Supreme Court, N.Y.Cty., June 1, 2000).

Proactive

We strive to be proactive. One of our suggestions, unsolicited by a large corporate client, has averted the risk of millions of dollars in adverse verdicts. Our client was routinely sued in two of the five counties of New York City, which are not friendly to large corporations and are the highest verdict venues in New York State. In many cases, these counties were not the proper venues. At our suggestion, the client amended its New York certificate of incorporation to change its official office from New York County (Manhattan) to Westchester County, a far better venue for corporate defendants. This change has enabled us to remove improperly-venued cases to Westchester, the defendant-oriented county of our choice. This has resulted in very favorable settlements or dismissals of the cases.

Innovative

We strive to be truly innovative in our strategic thinking and problem solving. Several recent examples are described below.

We always seek out the opportunity of disposing of cases on motions to dismiss or for summary judgment; we have a high success rate on these motions. LaRuffa v. Fleet Bank, N.A. , 260 A.D.2d 299, 689 N.Y.S.2d 59 (1st Dept. 1999), is an example of a case where we made the initial strategic decision that the plaintiffs' legal theory was flawed and that a motion to dismiss would be successful. Our motion to dismiss was granted and then sustained on appeal.

We used Alternative Dispute Resolution to save a client from embarrassing litigation. An accounting firm for a religious school was alleged to have managed the school's investment portfolio and to have advised an investment in several speculative securities. When these stocks did not perform well, the school threatened litigation.

Our client represented other religious charities and was concerned about the impact of a lawsuit on its practice. The cost of protracted litigation was also a concern, since the client's insurance carrier had disclaimed coverage. To avoid these risks, we agreed with the school to engage in ADR. Following tightly controlled discovery, including limited document production and short, two-hour depositions, the facts were presented to a neutral evaluator to provide non-binding advice as to whether the school had a viable claim.

The evaluator recommended that the school should not bring a lawsuit, because its claims were weak. The school followed the evaluator's recommendation, sparing our client expensive litigation, which, with the attendant publicity, could have destroyed its practice. We were then successful in suing the insurance carrier for wrongfully denying coverage.

Tom Lynch, Marc Rowin and their colleagues, Karen Kirshenbaum, Patrick Comerford, and Jennifer Chavez, invite you to contact them to learn more about our firm and how they can assist you.