Miami Boutique Emphasizes Federal Litigation Expertise
The Big Law and federal prosecution veterans at Stumphauzer Foslid Sloman Ross & Kolaya focus on complex commercial litigation and white collar criminal defense.
November 14, 2019 at 12:40 PM
8 minute read
With a mix of former Big Law partners and federal prosecutors, Stumphauzer Foslid Sloman Ross & Kolaya offers legal guidance on complex commercial litigation and white-collar criminal defense.
The Miami law firm got a makeover in March with the addition of three Greenberg Traurig partners, triggering a name change. Other Big Law experience comes from attorneys previously with Skadden Arps, Carlton Fields and Gunster.
Jeffrey Sloman, a former Miami U.S. attorney, and Ryan Stumphauzer, previously a top federal health care fraud prosecutor, highlight the federal experience. To add other levels of expertise, one of the attorneys is an accountant and another a civil engineer.
Their objective is to provide "elite and efficient representation" supported by extensive litigation experience.
In a question-and-answer format, the firm offers more insight into its operations and thinking.
Firm: Stumphauzer Foslid Sloman Ross & Kolaya
Firm leaders: Ryan Stumphauzer, Adam Foslid, Jeff Sloman, Ian Ross and Tim Kolaya, partners
Head count: Eight lawyers
Location: Miami
Practice areas: The firm is a full-service litigation boutique that focuses on complex commercial litigation and white-collar criminal defense. Our civil practice is led by former Big Law partners experienced in defending: all forms of commercial, business, real estate and corporate disputes; class action, products liability and consumer protection litigation, cross-border matters and international arbitrations. Our criminal defense practice is led by two former high-ranking federal prosecutors who focus on health care fraud, securities fraud and other white-collar criminal cases. The firm also routinely handles matters at the intersection of our civil and criminal practices, such as whistleblower-qui tam cases, internal investigations, and regulatory and enforcement actions. Additionally, we frequently provide clients with compliance advice involving, among other things, health care laws, litigation risk mitigation, consumer protection statutes, privacy and data issues, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Office of Foreign Asset Control sanctions programs.
Governance structure and compensation model: The firm is governed and led by its five name partners but maintains a culture built on individual engagement and collaboration. All of our attorneys and support staff participate and have a voice in all of the firm's decisions. We want our younger attorneys to be invested in the future of the firm and part of the culture we are growing. The firm's compensation model is focused on attracting top legal talent and includes highly competitive base salaries and bonuses consistent with those offered by the Miami offices of large national and international law firms.
Do you offer alternative fee arrangements? Yes. The firm is singularly focused on delivering high-caliber legal services to our clients, without the inefficiencies, bureaucracy and inflexibility of our larger peers. We strive to work hand-in-hand with our clients to develop competitive fee structures that align the firm's interests with those of our clients. Those structures include pure contingency fee arrangements, traditional or blended hourly engagements, hybrid models that combine hourly and contingency components, and "flat" or "capped" fee agreements.
What do you view as the two biggest opportunities for your firm, and what are the two biggest threats? We believe that our experience is our biggest strength. Our partners have decades of experience in Big Law and as federal prosecutors. We've litigated bet-the-company cases at trial and on appeal in a variety of jurisdictions involving a multitude of legal issues. This experience, coupled with the efficiencies of a litigation boutique, creates a unique opportunity for us to provide elite and efficient representation to national and international clients through a lower-cost, conflict-free and relationship-focused model.
We appreciate the challenges of growing a litigation boutique in this legal environment. We know that large companies and senior officers will often look to a national law firm rather than a litigation boutique to solve their biggest problems, and we know that clients are increasingly sensitive to the costs of litigation, especially during discovery. The challenge for all law firms then becomes convincing clients that they can deliver the same quality and expertise as the biggest and best law firms in the world, while also maintaining efficiencies and managing litigation costs like a small firm. We believe our firm strikes the right balance between these competing challenges. We have significant experience in disputes of all shapes and sizes, we have expertise managing e-discovery costs in large and multinational cases, and we pride ourselves in providing accurate estimates for legal costs and in our ability to manage those costs in large and small matters.
The legal market is so competitive now—what trends do you see, and has anything, including alternative service providers, altered your approach? Is your chief competition other mid-market firms, or is your firm competing against big firms for the same work? More than ever, clients want predictability and efficiency in their representation. Increasingly, our clients expect us to provide forward-looking budgets, to consider alternative fee arrangements, and to look for opportunities for early dispute resolution in our matters. We think these trends will continue and are already finding that clients also want our advice on litigation financing options and other alternative approaches to litigation in our larger matters.
We are competing with both mid-market and big firms because, simply stated, there are a lot of great firms in Miami. On our more complex matters, we are frequently litigating alongside these firms and working collaboratively with them. Although we are competing for the same work, we take pride in our ability to collaborate effectively with co-counsel and foster relationships within the South Florida legal community.
There is much debate around how law firms can foster the next generation of legal talent. What advantages and disadvantages do midsize and small firms have in attracting and retaining young lawyers, particularly millennials? We think we only have positives to offer the next generation of attorneys interested in high-level litigation. Our clients are the same clients they would be working with at a national law firm. Our work is just as complex and diverse, and our compensation is competitive with that offered at large law firms, but with far less bureaucracy, conflicts and other developmental impediments.
We are also focused on building a culture where young attorneys are part of the processes that run our firm. Our associates have sat in on partnership meetings, they wrote our website and marketing materials with us, and they are helping us design our new offices. We are always looking for them to participate in our decisions and become more personally invested in the success of the firm. We are hiring the people that want to be a part of what we are building.
Does your firm employ any nonlawyer professionals in high-level positions (e.g. COO, business development officer, chief strategy officer, etc.)? If so, why is it advantageous to have a nonlawyer in that role? If not, have you considered hiring any? Our firm's office manager is truly a one-person C-suite. We are growing quickly and are looking for opportunities to add marketing-business development and information technology personnel as things move forward. In the meantime, we use experienced third-party professional services for the firm's administrative, marketing, information technology, and accounting functions. All of that said, we believe it is critical that our lawyers — as the ultimate stakeholders and client service-providers — take ownership over the firm's high-level business decisions and strategic direction.
What would you say is the most innovative thing your firm has done recently, whether it be technology advancements, internal operations, how you work with clients, etc.? Our innovation strategy focuses less on technological and operational innovation and more on continuously staying at the forefront of our practice areas. We spend countless hours within our respective practice areas studying litigation and enforcement trends, and analyzing the ever-changing legal, legislative and regulatory landscapes affecting our clients.
Does your firm have a succession plan in place? If so, what challenges do you face in trying to execute that plan? If you don't currently have a plan, is it an issue your firm is thinking about? Right now, the firm is singularly focused on delivering unparalleled legal services to our clients. We are, as part of that client-centric focus, committed to attracting, developing and retaining top-notch legal talent. That commitment is at the core of our who we are as a firm and will end up defining our growth strategies and succession plans.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFlorida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
3 minute readMorgan & Morgan Looks to Grow Into Complex Litigation While Still Keeping its Billboards Up
6 minute readLost in the Legal Maze: How State Regulations Are Hindering Hemp Operators' Success
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250