General Litigation — Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller Last year, Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller successfully tackled a broad range of litigation for an eclectic set of clients. Among its many victories in 2017, the firm won a $1.5 million verdict for client Comcast as part of a broader patent infringement fight with Sprint, notched several wins (and saved potentially millions of dollars) on behalf of insurer clients in coverage disputes across the country and, in a case with statewide applicability, successfully argued on appeal to the state Supreme Court that the Upper Merion Area School District's practice of selectively appealing the assessments of large commercial properties violated the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The firm also played key roles in two of Pennsylvania's most high-profile and hotly contested cases: defending the City of Philadelphia's sweetened beverage tax and representing Gov. Tom Wolf in the battle over federal congressional redistricting. John Summers, Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller John Summers, chair of the firm's litigation department What were some of the department's most satisfying successes of 2017, and why?

• We very recently were in the middle of two highly publicized litigations: on behalf of Gov. Tom Wolf, we fought to secure nongerrymandered federal congressional voting districts, a battle that would end in victory in 2018; and we have been successful defending the City of Philadelphia and its beverage tax, which provides critical funding for universal pre-kindergarten, community schools, parks, and recreational facilities. The appeal of the beverage tax litigation is pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
• Our litigators who focus their practice on very large insurance coverage matters succeeded in multiple cases across the country in federal and state courts, saving our clients hundreds of millions of dollars.
• On behalf of national drug store chains, our antitrust litigators actively pursue Big Pharma's unlawful efforts to improperly extend patents through a variety of improper practices, including by colluding with generic pharma companies. Our colleagues scored yet another set of substantial successes this year in federal litigation in U.S. District Courts and Courts of Appeal.
• Complementing the firm's strong real estate department, our litigators led a multi-year battle, ultimately persuading the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to reverse decades of intermediate appellate law authorizing local governments to take real estate tax assessment appeals that discriminate against commercial property owners.
• The firm has enjoyed many successes on behalf of its many pro bono clients, including working with the Pennsylvania Innocence Project in exonerating a man who was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for 33 years.

Is it a penchant for efficiency, or a willingness to go the distance as effective trial advocates, that gives the litigation department its reputation? A prospective client in crisis calls and asks why your team should be retained—what is your answer? It's a challenging litigation market, with flat or declining demand, rate pressures, and other factors. From a business perspective, what does it take for a litigation department to succeed in this environment? What is the firm doing to ensure that future generations of litigators are ready to take the helm?