Our Blog

SEVEN OGBORN MIHM, LLP ATTORNEYS NAMED 2020 BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA®

DENVER, CO (August 15, 2019) - Seven attorneys from Ogborn Mihm, LLP have been selected for inclusion to the 2020 edition of The Best Lawyers in America.

Continue reading
  367 Hits
367 Hits

Emily Fiscus Joins Ogborn Mihm, LLP

Emily 2 web

We are pleased to announce Emily Fiscus has joined the firm as an associate attorney.

Continue reading
  454 Hits
454 Hits

Ten Ogborn Mihm Attorneys Named to 2019 Colorado Super Lawyers List

OGBORN SUPER LAWYER ANNOUNCEMENT

Ogborn Mihm, LLP, is pleased to announce ten attorneys have been selected to the 2019 Colorado Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists.

Continue reading
  453 Hits
453 Hits

Trade Secret and Trade Secret Protection: Knowing is Half the Battle

Waymo v. Uber.  Qualcomm v. Apple.  ZeniMax v. Oculus.  While high profile trade secret cases like these have become more prevalent in headlines over the past couple of years, intellectual property cases do not only arise in the context of well-known corporations.  The number of trade secret cases in general has risen exponentially, due in part to the increase in startups, small tech firms, and the mobility of employees.  Oftentimes, smaller businesses rely on trade secret protection for designs and processes to avoid the upfront expense of obtaining patents, which require public disclosure of the underlying science or process and typically only provide protection for a set number of years.

Continue reading
  632 Hits
632 Hits

Medical Judgment May be “False or Fraudulent” Under the False Claims Act: U.S. ex rel. Polukoff v. St. Mark’s Hospital

In its July 2018 decision in United States ex rel. Polukoff v. St. Mark’s Hospital, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a doctor’s medical judgement can be “false or fraudulent” for the purposes of the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733.

Continue reading
  1420 Hits
1420 Hits

The When, What and How of Litigation Holds

In 2003, “litigation holds” became one of the hottest topics in e-discovery. This shift was due to United States District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin’s decisions in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg. Looked at collectively, the judge made clear that, once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must take special actions to preserve relevant electronic evidence.  Colorado courts take the same approach. See, e.g., Turner v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colorado, 563 F.3d 1136, 1149 (10th Cir. 2009)(duty to preserve evidence arises when party "knew, or should have known, that litigation was imminent").

Continue reading
  1038 Hits
1038 Hits

Can Relators Take Advantage of Lengthened Statute of Limitations in False Claims Act Qui Tam Cases

A recent 11th Circuit opinion held that False Claims Act (FCA) relators can invoke a three-year statute of limitations measured from when the government receives notice of the violation, even in a case in which the government declines to intervene.

Continue reading
  1181 Hits
1181 Hits

Five Ogborn Mihm, LLP attorneys named to 2019 Best Lawyers list

Ogborn Mihm, LLP is pleased to announce five lawyers have been included in the 2019 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America.

Continue reading
  981 Hits
981 Hits

Whistleblower Retaliation After Genberg v. Porter and Digital Realty v. Somers

Appellate Victory in Sarbanes-Oxley Act Whistleblower Case More Important Now, After SCOTUS Decision in Digital Realty

On February 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Digital Realty Trust v. Somers, Case No. 16-1276, -- US – (2018), holding that in order to be protected from retaliation for internal reporting under the Dodd-Frank Act’s Section 21F as a “whistleblower,” which is defined in the statute, the individual must have first made a disclosure to the SEC under the Act’s bounty system. While the decision was not the death blow to Chevron deference that some expected, given Justice Gorsuch’s apparent hatred of the doctrine, it was a significant limitation on the protections for whistleblowers.

Continue reading
  1565 Hits
1565 Hits

EXECUTIVE AWARDED $1.26M FOR BREACH OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

An El Paso County jury has awarded the former COO and President of a Colorado Springs based physical therapy training company $1.26 million, agreeing that the company had breached its employment contract with the executive and that the founder breached his promise to give one third of the company to the executive.

Continue reading
  1024 Hits
1024 Hits

Eight Ogborn Mihm attorneys have been selected by their peers to be listed as 2018 Colorado Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

The firm’s Colorado Super Lawyers are Murray Ogborn for personal injury plaintiffs; Michael Mihm for professional liability plaintiffs; Mike Ogborn for business litigation; Susie Hardie Jacks for bankruptcy, and Thomas Neville for business litigation.

Continue reading
  1221 Hits
1221 Hits

Ogborn Mihm Clients Dave and Amanda Repsher Settle Helicopter Crash Case

Flight Nurse Dave Repsher Settles Helicopter Crash Case

Continue reading
  1565 Hits
1565 Hits

Fiduciary Duties Involved in Colorado Businesses; Part I - The Basics

Colorado offers a lifestyle that is attractive to many new businesses, and in recent years, we have seen an influx of residents and start-ups seeking to take advantage of all this state has to offer. But business people—and particularly friends entering into business on a handshake or “back-of-the-napkin” deal—should take care to draft business agreements up front in order to avoid the lawsuits that may ensue when disputes arise down the line. One particular area of concern that often times leads to the break-up of a business is a breach of fiduciary duty. But what is a fiduciary duty and how do you know if you are violating it? This series will first address the basics of fiduciary duties, the sources from which those duties come, and the enforcement of those duties. Then, each subsequent Part will address what those duties entail in relation to a partnership, limited liability company, and corporation.

Continue reading
  3164 Hits
3164 Hits

Competing with Non-Compete Provisions

You are married to your job. You are what you do. There is truth to the idea that we all identify ourselves with the profession we have chosen. So, what happens when someone tries to limit your ability to do that job? Most often, these limitations are presented in the form of a non-compete clause in a contract. Colorado does not look favorably on restricting competition or a person’s ability to work, and our legislature enacted law that defines very narrow exceptions to the general rule that covenants not to compete are void. Colorado Revised Statute Section 8-2-113 states that a contractual restriction on a person’s ability to perform “skilled or unskilled labor for any employer” is automatically unenforceable unless it falls into one of four categories.

Continue reading
  1851 Hits
1851 Hits

Lawson v. FMR: Private Contractors of Public Companies Fall Within SOX Anti-Retaliation Provision

 

Continue reading
  2290 Hits
2290 Hits

Court Enforces Arbitration Agreement in Dodd-Frank Act Retaliation Case

The court in Wussow v. Bruker Corp., decided on June 28, 2017, ruled that whistleblower claims brought under the Dodd-Frank Act are subject to mandatory arbitration. 

Continue reading
  1843 Hits
1843 Hits

Free Webinar on July 28th to Celebrate Whistleblower Appreciation Day

Join whistleblower attorney Clayton Wire and the law firm Ogborn Mihm LLP on July 28th at 12:00 pm MST at ilovewhistleblowers.com for a free webinar: Whistleblower Protections & Incentives.

Continue reading
  1807 Hits
1807 Hits

Jury Awards Whistleblower Over $25 Million in Sarbanes-Oxley Retaliation Case

In April, a Los Angeles County jury awarded $22.4 million in punitive damages (that was later reduced to $2.27 million) along with $2.7 million in lost past and future wages to Steven Babyak in a whistleblower retaliation and wrongful termination case against Cardiovascular Systems, Inc (CSI). Babyak, a former sales manager for the company, argued that he was retaliated against, culminating in termination, after making complaints about a hostile work environment and violations of the Anti-Kickback Act and securities laws under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The

Continue reading
  6368 Hits
6368 Hits

SpaceX cleared in $6 Million Whistleblower Lawsuit for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

On June 7, 2017, a jury decided in favor of Space Exploration Technologies Corp. after an 8 day trial to determine whether Jason Blasdell had been wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy. Blasdell claimed he was fired after raising concerns about SpaceX’s compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 38, a federal statute prohibiting fraud against a customer involving aircraft or space vehicle parts. The former Avionics Test Technician working on the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft alleged that he had been wrongfully terminated after voicing concerns about the falsification of test results following safety testing and misrepresentations in connection with SpaceX’s multi-billion dollar contracts with customers including NASA. Specifically, Blasdell claimed that managers told him to sign off on parts quality regardless of whether he could verify their compliance with protocol. Blasdell claims he voiced his concerns to management, as far up as SpaceX President Gwen Shotwell and CEO Elon Musk. 

Continue reading
  1844 Hits
1844 Hits

New York Appellate Court Adopts Broad Causation Standard in Legal Malpractice Case

Generally, in a legal malpractice case the plaintiff must prove that it would have achieved a better result, but for the attorney’s malpractice. In the litigation context, this means that the plaintiff must prove that it would have succeeded on the underlying claim or defense, but for the attorney negligence, often referred to as proving the “case within the case.” In the transactional context, the plaintiff often uses the “better deal, no deal” dichotomy to prove causation. Under the “no deal” prong, the plaintiff can prove causation by establishing that, but for the attorney negligence, it would have achieved a better result had it not entered into the transaction at issue. Alternatively, under the “better deal” prong, the plaintiff can succeed by proving that, but for the legal malpractice, it would have achieved a better result through a better and different “deal” or agreement than the transaction at issue. A New York appellate court in Leggiadro, Ltd. V. Winston & Strawn applied a broad and plaintiff friendly interpretation of the “better deal” prong of this causation paradigm.

Continue reading
  2617 Hits
2617 Hits

Contact Us