Corp America January 2017

28 CORP AMERICA / JANUARY 2017 , Ward & Condrey is a boutique lawfirmprimarily handling commercial litigationmatters. Its offices are located in Covington, Louisiana, just across Lake Pontchartrain from the major hub of NewOrleans, but the practice area extends to a state-wide level. Specializing in business disputes involving breach of contract, construction issues, antitrust and unfair trade practices, real estate disputes, banking and finance, oil and gas disputes, RICO (Racketeering) and products liability/rehibition cases, Ward & Condrey represent a new face for boutique law firms specialising in litigation. Thinking out of the Box Lisa Condrey graduated from Tulane Law School in 1983. Her area of focus is civil litigation. Lisa has extensive experience in business litigation, personal injury, construction law, medical malpractice, toxic exposure and products liability. Like her business partner Joseph, her practice area includes the entire state of Louisiana. Born in Lake Providence, Louisiana, Lisa has been a partner in Ward and Condrey since 2004, and is actively involved in community and civic endeavors. Joseph R. Ward, Jr., who began practicing law in 1977 and has since been admitted to practice before all Louisiana state courts as well as the US Fifth District Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and has served as Chairman of the Board of the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, details his company’s ascent into the annals of among the best and most innovative law firms in not only the South, but the nation as well. “We are honored and appreciate being named “most innovative law firm – Louisiana” by Corp. America. We believe our reputation is based on our ability to successfully handle large and complex litigation in a small firm setting. The most significant factor that sets our firm apart from others is our strategic planning ability. Naturally we look at standard strategies that could be applied to a client’s legal problems. But we then go further to develop innovative strategies for our clients’ consideration. Some refer to this as “thinking out of the box”. We believe that each client’s problem is unique and needs to be examined from a fresh prospective to see if some less mainstream strategy might be advantageous. This is particularly important when a client has limited resources. Many times, a client will achieve a better result with an innovative and more cost-effective approach then going forward with a standard strategy. Here, Joseph takes the opportunity to discuss in detail a couple of the recent cases that best exemplify the quality of results that Ward & Condrey together have obtained for their clients. Hollybrook Cottonseed Processing, LLC v. Carver, reported at 772 F.3d 1031. “Our client, Hollybrook, alleged that it sustained substantial damage when its cottonseed processing plant was shut down because of defective equipment manufactured and supplied by the defendant. After two lengthy jury trials, a final judgment was entered in favor of Hollybrook and against the defendant’s insurer for $6 million. The case was particularly complex because Hollybrook processed cottonseed into four separate products and sold the products through non-established commodities markets. We retained an economist and a commodities pricing expert to build a damage model. During the litigation, the defendants retained over 20 attorneys to defend against our allegations. Ultimately, a jury agreed that Hollybrook was entitled to an award of $6 million. The United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the award and returned it to the District Court with a requirement that attorney fees be added. Attorney fees were ultimately awarded in the amount of $1.7 million. As the Court of Appeal stated when affirming the award for attorney fees, ‘the facts were complicated and highly contested. The two attorneys representing Hollybrook have practiced since 1977 and 1987 respectively and handled numerous jury trials throughout their careers. The ultimate result was a total vindication of Hollybrook’s suit: the jury found damages to exceed $6 million and Hollybrook has actually recovered over $5 million’.” Monroe Surgical Hospital v. St. Francis Medical Center, reported at 147 So.3d 1234. “In this case, our client Monroe Surgical, alleged that one of its competitors entered into a conspiracy to restrain trade in the full-service hospital market in Northeast Louisiana. It was alleged that the concerted action took place between St. Francis’ CEO and other officers who also sat on Monroe Surgical’s Board. We retained renowned antitrust economist, Frank Gollop of Boston, MA, to prepare an antitrust damage analysis. “According to Dr. Gollop’s analysis, Monroe Surgical sustained damages in the amount of $30 million. Under the Louisiana Antitrust Statute, that baseline damage would be tripled to $90 million. After computing accumulated judicial interest and attorney fees, it was estimated that the defendant’s total exposure was in excess 1701CA17 “We believe that each client’s problem is unique and needs to be examined from a fresh prospective to see if some less mainstream strategy might be advantageous.”