Michael knows that his client's legal issues are not academic exercises. They have real consequences for the individuals and businesses involved. That is why he likes to reduce complexity so that he can provide advice that is understandable and leads to the best possible result. He applies the same approach to litigation, reducing a dispute to its core and focusing on how his client can prevail. That might mean litigating a case through to a judgment, or sending a single letter.

Michael has partnered with a business psychologist to create a CD for managers and others involved in hiring employees called, “Tips for the Interview and Hiring Process,” which is available upon request.

Michael is currently the President of Main Line Reform Temple in Wynnewood, PA and previously served on the board of the Lantern Theater Company in Philadelphia.

• We represented a retired commercial insurance broker whose former employer refused to pay her hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement payments and commissions. We had a trial and won and then the appellate court affirmed the trial decision. After five years of litigation, our client finally received her payments that were long overdue.


• The NLRB opened an investigation against our client after a former contractor filed a charge complaining that our client impermissibly limited discussion of terms and conditions of employment. We believed the NLRB had no jurisdiction because the workers at issue were not employees of our client. After we wrote to the NLRB explaining our view, the NLRB withdrew the charge.


• Our client, an enterprise software consulting firm, was threatened by a business partner with a lawsuit over our client’s hiring of a key employee. We convinced the lawyers on the other side that they had no real claim against our client. The parties reached an amicable resolution and went their separate ways.


• We represented former executives of a multi-billion dollar corporation over promises made in a retirement agreement, obtaining a favorable decision for them from the Pennsylvania Superior Court on the key legal issue in the case.


• A commercial painting subcontractor on a high-profile condominium tower project in Philadelphia inadvertently caused some damage and was assessed back-charges by the general contractor. When our client’s insurance carrier refused to issue a coverage determination on the claim, we filed suit. We then sued the general contractor because we believed that a significant part of the back-charges were unjustified. After digging into the GC’s documentation, we were able to show that our client was not responsible for all of the back-charges. Shortly after that, the GC settled with our client.


• We represented a retired NFL player in his ERISA case against the NFL disability plan, obtaining one of the very few court decisions in favor of a retired player.

• Arbitrating a contract dispute on behalf of global plastics manufacturer resulting in an award in favor of our client.


• Defending a market research firm in an employment discrimination case and obtaining dismissal of the complaint.