“Any securities lawyer worth his or her salt can tell you what the rule book says. The art in this work is crafting deals and disclosure that comply with the rules, get financings done, and benefit our clients.”

Megan Gates, Co-chair, Securities & Capital Markets Practice
Mintz Levin. Not your standard practice.

“As litigators — whether at trial, arbitration, or mediation — we always focus on our client's business objectives when crafting the best strategy to achieve their goals.”

Adam Sisitsky, Member, Litigation Practice
Mintz Levin. Not your standard practice.

“In transactions, part of our role is to lay the groundwork for a relationship that may last decades. How we represent our client is not just about legal representation but setting the tone for that ongoing relationship.”

Dawn Saunders, Member, Real Estate Practice
Mintz Levin. Not your standard practice.

“It’s a team approach that works best in litigation, and Mintz Levin is the one you want on your side if a conflict arises. We work with clients to understand their objectives and develop a game plan to achieve their goals.”

Frank Earley, Member, Litigation Practice
Mintz Levin. Not your standard practice.

“Technology is constantly jumping ahead of the regulations relating to securities offerings. Our job is to help you navigate these rules so that you can use technology to accelerate the growth of your business.”

Dan DeWolf, Chair, Technology Practice
Co-chair, Venture Capital & Emerging Companies Practice
Mintz Levin. Not your standard practice.
Pro Bono at Mintz Levin – Chris Lhulier, Associate, Corporate & Securities Practice
Chris Lhulier discusses the importance the firm places on pro bono legal service and giving back to the community. Watch Video »
The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Commil v. Cisco held that a good-faith belief of a patent’s invalidity, standing alone, is insufficient to provide a defense to a claim of inducing another’s infringement of a United States Patent. Viewed through the historical overlap and common reasoning underpinning the analysis of intent to induce infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b) and willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. §284, this new jurisprudence will spawn uncertainty and require n Read More »