There are times to go to court, and there are times not to go to court. Early, decisive legal advice on just that point often times saves clients hundreds of thousands of dollars, or, when the tables are turned, makes clients hundreds of thousands of dollars. Frank, learned, and passionate advice comes from our attorneys’ understanding of the risks of litigation. But, more importantly, these decisions are based on a clear devotion to understanding and advancing each individual client’s unique needs.
Along with its wealth of history in more specialized litigation matters as described elsewhere in this website, Landrum & Friduss attorneys have been involved in a wide variety of sophisticated litigation matters including product liability, class action medical device, every day commercial litigation disputes, land theft, defamation, seven figure personal injury cases, seven figure premises liability matters, unfair business practices, cybersquatting, legal malpractice, kaolin land fraud, political recall litigation, and First Amendment free speech cases.
Initial consultations are always without charge. You may contact the Firm by telephone or via email to set up an initial consultation. Contact Us.
Click an attorney to be taken to their bios:
Phillip M. Landrum, III
Phil Friduss
Ellen Ash
Related Publications
Phillip E. Friduss, Ellen Ash, & Elaine Poon, The King Can Do No Wrong! State Law Tort Claims Against Georgia Counties, Cities and their Public Officials, (January 2008)
Phillip E. Friduss, State Supreme Court Refuses to Create Exception to At-Will Employment Doctrine, Georgia County Government, September, 2004.
Phillip E. Friduss & Cynthia Matthews Daley, Making Sense of Georgia’s Offer of Settlement Statute. WITH UPDATED NOTE
Holly L. Palmer, Jennifer L. McKernan, & Phillip E. Friduss, Sexual Discrimination - “Liability for Acts of Supervisors: Strict Liability.”
Phillip E. Friduss, The Good the Bad and the “What?” Continuing Violations in Employment
Cases After Morgan.
Phillip E. Friduss, ADA UPDATE: Supreme Court Rejects “Ability to Perform Job Tasks”
Standard in Favor of Focusing on a Claimant’s Ability to Perform Activities of “Central Importance to Daily Life.”