Businesses of all types and sizes throughout the United States, Mexico and beyond bring their disputes to Gardere's litigation team and receive practical, responsive, boutique-style attention in return. Our clients have access to the firepower and value of a well-known and highly-regarded Firm's capabilities and interdisciplinary strengths.
Gardere has a national and international energy practice formed around our Energy Industry Team, which is a multidisciplinary group of approximately 80 attorneys with diverse backgrounds, experience and skills specific to the energy industry. Our team includes attorneys who have served as in-house counsel for major energy companies, providing a depth of insight into our clients' needs, issues and concerns. We understand and regularly practice in virtually every sector of the energy, and we represent a wide variety of industry participants from multinational corporations to individuals.
From our offices in the United States and Mexico, our International Practice helps clients operate in today’s global economy. We have more than 30 professionals operating as a boutique within an Am Law 200 law firm and are able to provide focused service with the resources of a large firm. We understand that clients who are engaged in the global marketplace need lawyers who can operate seamlessly across multiple jurisdictions. Our international experts are multi-lingual, are culturally fluent and intimately familiar with various legal systems across the world, especially those in Latin America. Whether you need help with commercial transactions, regulatory matters, customs and import regulations, immigration matters, M&A and joint ventures, international disputes, or international tax planning, Gardere’s international team is here to assist you.
We represent domestic and foreign private funds in all aspects of fund formation, fund operations, platform and add-on acquisitions, and portfolio company operations. Our team has a reputation for being the go-to-lawyers for private equity funds, hedge funds, venture capital funds and family offices. We are known for our vast deal experience, the efficient way we staff and manage our work, and the way we maintain our relationships. We get deals done with sophisticated, strategic, and practical advice tailored to the needs of our clients.
*Not admitted to practice law.
One of the most discordant features of the national “conversation on race” we find bobbing in the wake of the Ferguson, Missouri incident (in which a white police officer shot and killed a young black man) is, as New York Times columnist David Brooks has noted (Class Prejudice Resurgent, New York Times, December 2014, available at www.newyorktimes.com), the attempt to tie the discussion back to the civil rights-era struggles of the 1950s and 60s. But this is almost a category error in my view because those struggles were legal struggles that took shape over the course of the hundred years following the American Civil War. What we are dealing with now is something else. To help us figure out what that “something else” might be, we need to look back at the history of slavery in the United States and how a legal narrative evolved to combat its pernicious legacy.
Slavery was legally institutionalised – albeit obliquely and euphemistically (the word “slave” and its cognates appear nowhere) – in the United States’ Constitution. In short, there was no clear consensus – an unambiguous public narrative, if you will – about the morality or practical desirability of slavery. In fact, much evidence suggests that the Constitution’s drafters were so divided on the subject that they mostly set the matter aside for later resolution.
After the other two branches of government had failed to resolve the slavery question, the United States Supreme Court entered the fray in Dred Scott v. Sanford, which has proved to be one of the most vilified decisions in Supreme Court history. Dred Scott, who had admittedly once been a slave, brought a trespass suit in federal court against John Sanford. He claimed that the federal court had “diversity of citizenship” jurisdiction over the suit because he was a citizen of Missouri and Sanford was a citizen of New York. Scott asserted that he became free by virtue of his residence in two states in which slavery was banned. Sanford countered that even if Scott were free, that did not make him a “citizen” of Missouri and, therefore, the federal court had no jurisdiction to hear Scott’s case. Chief Justice Roger Taney’s majority opinion in Dred Scott held that Scott, as a member of a subordinate and inferior class of beings”, could not, ipso facto, be a “citizen” of any state within the meaning of the Constitution.
A civil war, three Constitutional Amendments, and a host of enabling acts later, there was no longer doubt that blacks were legal persons entitled to the full range of Constitutional protections. But what that range entailed was a different matter. Plessy v. Ferguson, which was decided nearly forty years after Dred Scott, showed how the narrative of difference had not been erased and could still trump the grand public narrative of America as a bastion of freedom and equality.
The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.
You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander. A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.
Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used. For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.
AND and OR may be used in a search. Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance."
The + and - sign operators may be used. The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".
To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks. For example, "Project Finance".
Searches are not case sensitive.