Case Western Reserve University School of Law students in the Milton A. Kramer Law Clinic recently obtained a jury verdict of $1.12 million in favor of their clients, a family victimized by a fraudulent home-repair and financing scheme. The students tried their damages case to a jury on Feb. 10 in the courtroom of Cuyahoga County Visiting Judge John E. Corrigan. This verdict was the largest in the clinic’s history and included compensatory damages, treble damages under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and punitive damages.

Students Jennifer Hadley and Brant DiChiera meet with School
of Law Professor Andrew Pollis.

Current third-year students Brant DiChiera and Jennifer Hadley represented the client. DiChiera explained how it felt to hear the verdict read: “As Judge Corrigan read the verdict, I realized the jury gave us the full amount for which we asked. In fact, they gave one of our clients $9,000 more. It was a complete adrenaline rush. Absolutely thrilling.”

School of Law Clinic Professor Andrew S. Pollis supervised the students involved with this case, which first came to the clinic in September 2008. Several students handled various stages of this case, including Michael Spivak (LAW, ’09), Nakedra Byrd (LAW, ’09), Alix Emerson (LAW, ’10) and Aaron Minc (LAW, ’10). Spivak (who passed away Feb. 27) and Byrd filed the initial complaint; Emerson and Minc obtained an $8,000 partial settlement for the clients last spring.

Pollis was thrilled to see one of the clinic’s civil cases tried to a jury. “Most of our cases settle out of court, so having a jury trial was fantastic. Brant and Jen did almost all of the talking in court, from jury selection to closing arguments,” he said. Pollis also was pleased that the students could add something eye-popping to their résumés. “In this market, third-year law students who can say they’ve done a jury trial and won over $1 million will certainly have an edge. It’s an experience that many practicing lawyers have never had. And that kind of experience is one of the great things that the clinic can offer.

An article about the case was featured in The Docket, the student newspaper at CWRU School of Law. Read the article here.

The team members, (from left) Tyler Talbert, Elizabeth Sparks,
Cameron McLeod and Jory Hoffman, will travel to Washington,
D.C., in the spring to compete in the International Rounds.

Case Western Reserve University School of Law’s Jessup Team won the Midwest regional Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition in Chicago. This is the fourth year out of the past five that Case Western Reserve’s team has won the competition.

The law school’s Jessup team, consisting of Cameron McLeod, Elizabeth Sparks, Jory Hoffman and Tyler Talbert, won all four preliminary rounds against DePaul University, Michigan State University, University of Tennessee and University of Iowa. Then, McLeod and Hoffman beat Wayne State University in the quarterfinals and Thomas M. Cooley Law School in the semifinals, and Talbert and Sparks beat University of Michigan in the final round.

In addition, the CWRU team won the third best brief award, and the awards for the best final round oralist (Talbert), third best overall oralist (McLeod) and 10th best overall oralist (Hoffman).

CWRU’s team, which is coached by Professor Michael Scharf and Adjunct Professor Margaux Day, beat out 24 other law schools for the right to represent the United States next at the White & Case International Rounds in Washington, D.C., where they will face winners from 120 other countries and the other five U.S. regional competitions. In 2008, the CWRU team won the Jessup World Championship, and the famed Jessup Cup is on display in the showcase on the first floor of the law school.

This year’s Jessup Problem involved the lawfulness of Predator drone strikes, the legality of a legislative ban on religious head coverings and legal issues relating to an indirect bribe of a foreign official.

David Mills

Local attorney and Case Western Reserve University School of Law Adjunct Professor David Mills argued and won his first case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. On Monday, the justices unanimously reversed a federal appeals court ruling that had thrown out a jury’s verdict in favor of an Elyria woman who was sexually assaulted while serving a sentence in an Ohio prison. School of Law Visiting Assistant Professor Andrew Pollis served as co-counsel on the case, which was heard in November.

The justices said the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati had “no warrant” to override the jury’s verdict, thus reinstating a $625,000 award to Michelle Ortiz, Mills’ client. Ortiz was serving a 12-month sentence at the Ohio Reformatory for Women in November 2002 when she reported sexual assault by a male guard who threatened to assault her again, and then did. When she discussed the attacks with other inmates, she was sent to solitary confinement in shackles.

Now, Ortiz is “obviously elated” by the Supreme Court decision, Mills said. “I’m very relieved and happy for her. Part of the reason this is all happening is because of her perseverance even before I got into the picture.”

This was Mills’ first case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the experience for him was both surreal and surprising. The grandeur of it all was thrilling, from the building to the history to the face-to-face interaction with nine famous justices, he said, but the process was a surprisingly intimate exchange. “It turned into a discussion with the nine justices and the attorney, and I felt they were really trying to ascertain the best way to apply the law,” Mills said.

Andrew Pollis

Pollis, who previously served as co-counsel on another Supreme Court case, Saudi Basic Indus. Corp. v. ExxonMobil Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005), said working with Mills was an honor. As one of two co-counsels, Pollis helped Mills research, draft, review and edit briefs as well as prepare for the oral argument, which served as a learning experience for all involved. “We took the case apart and put it back together a million times,” he explained. “The best part for me was realizing how other people—very smart people—think through problems in different ways. The give-and-take was tremendously gratifying.”

For Mills, the ruling confirms the hard work throughout the entire process paid off. “I interpret the decision today with a feeling that the Court really heard what we were saying,” he said.