Bob Patterson was a partner when he retired at Bradley. As a trial lawyer who understood business, Bob spent the last 35 years representing all types of businesses in complex litigation in courtrooms from California to Florida. Bob combined business acumen with courtroom experience to assure his clients make informed business decisions about business litigation.
A seasoned courtroom lawyer, Bob loved the challenge of complex litigation. He was energized by the “learning experience” presented by complex cases with novel issues, identified the key elements of the case, and focused his efforts on those factors that are “outcome determinative.” He regarded each case as an opportunity to apply for his client’s benefit the lessons learned trying everything from personal injury to securities cases for companies large and small. He was a trial lawyer, rather than a litigator, who knew what would be important in the courtroom, and understood how to present complicated concepts about complex transactions in a way that guided the fact finder to the best resolution for his clients.
Importantly but uniquely for a commercial trial lawyer, Bob understood business from an insider’s perspective. He held leadership roles in numerous organizations, served as the outside general counsel for several companies, and served as the managing partner of his law firm for six years. He understood that business litigation does not exist in a vacuum, and appreciated the many organizational, tax, accounting and risk management issues that impacted the development and the resolution of business disputes.
So, what is “complex commercial litigation?” Bob liked the “three-dimensional chess game” presented by commercial litigation that almost always involved considerations beyond the legal issues in the case. Disputes between shareholders involved not only complex accounting and business valuation issues, but also impacted personnel and business operations. Bob saw more go wrong in business in one year than most CEOs (hopefully) see go wrong in a lifetime, and used his experience working in many industries to develop a critical path for the resolution of those issues.
For example, the changing world of heathcare presented unique issues in litigation: Bob loved the science involved in defending a medical malpractice case, but managed those cases with the perspective of his experience in managing litigation in all phases of the healthcare industry. Changes in reimbursement have stressed providers of all types, forcing a re-examination of vicarious liability issues inherent in the doctor/hospital relationship, and making the governance decisions about privileges, investigation and reporting particularly sensitive. At a corporate level, Bob understood and applied his involvement in reimbursement issues and internal investigations of potential Stark Law violations to the defense of False Claims Act cases. At a more global level, Bob defended a large hospital chain against allegations that it failed to provide appropriate charitable care, defended a major mental healthcare benefits provider against allegations that it wrongfully terminated a provider and consulted on the antitrust ramifications of the referral relationships between hospitals and large provider groups.