Compliance & Risk Management

I provide comprehensive solutions to help establish strong legal foundations:

• Employee Handbooks that reflect the fundamental priorities of businesses while ensuring compliance with federal and Connecticut employment laws, including the FMLA, CTFMLA, FLSA, NLRA, ADA, Title VII, Title II, the Connecticut Human Rights law, OSHA, CT Paid Sick Leave, CT Paid Leave, Connecticut wage law, all other state leave entitlements, legally mandated notices of rights, and other applicable statutes and regulations
• Workplace Policies addressing critical operational areas to withstand regulatory changes and require only minor tweaks over time
• Employment Contracts, as well as non-competes, separation agreements, release agreements, confidentiality agreements, and all manner of employment contracts, independent contractor agreements for non-employees

Advice & Counsel

My approach combines litigation expertise with day-to-day practical guidance:

• Employee Rights & Advocacy helping workers understand their legal protections and options when facing workplace issues
• Employee Discipline & Termination counsel based on independent professional judgment and verifiable knowledge of applicable law
• Management Training on union campaigns and NLRB election procedures that prepare employers to handle union interactions and campaigns effectively and without running afoul of the NLRA

Litigation & Administrative Proceedings

I represent both employees and employers in various adversarial contexts:

• Discrimination, Harassment, & Hostile Work Environment and all manner of causes of action under applicable employment laws, pursuing claims for employees and moving for dismissal or summary judgment with well-crafted motions for employers
• Wage & Hour Claims pursuing allegations of state and federal wage law violations for workers and defending against such claims for employers, specifically the FLSA and Connecticut state law, on an individual and class-action basis
• Administrative Proceedings before the CHRO, EEOC, and DOL to pursue or contest charges and complaints at all stages from answers to fact-finding to investigations

I take a long-term view of my client’s interests and seek to provide lasting mitigation measures in addition to “putting out the fires” of the moment. I do so by applying my independent judgment as a legal professional to every aspect of my practice. Having established my own firm, I can freely implement solutions based on what I decide is best for clients, placing me in the most competitive legal services market and enabling me to provide the highest value in exchange.

I charge fees on an hourly or contingency basis depending on the type of service being offered to employers and employees.

For advice and counsel to employers or employees , which may include workplace or personnel challenges, or drafting or interpreting specific employer policies, or assessments of liability or exposure, I charge $175 per hour. For litiation for employers, I charge $175 per hour. I offer contingency fees for recovery for employees on claims against a former employer. All final fee structures will be consistent with this schedule, but the terms of each individual engagement agreement will set the final terms for a particular representation. I will work with clients seeking either limited or full scope representation, depending on the nature of the legal matter.

All clients remain responsible for all filing or court fees and related litigation expenses.

Other than specific contingency arrangements, I charge hourly and price my services so that I am in the most competitive position on the market without compromising on quality. I seek to be transparent and clear about which costs a client is responsible for and which they are not. This approach makes my services accessible to individual employees pursuing claims as well as businesses of all sizes. While maintaining certain policies and fee rates consistent across all representations, I draft each engagement individually. I will work with clients on both sides of employment matters to provide mutually agreeable terms suited to the type of representation required.

My path to employment law practice began in public service. I served as a non-attorney regulatory advisor in a congressional office, assisting constituents with federal administrative agency matters and later with the New York City Campaign Finance Board. Since then, my perspective on regulation of the employment relationship and private businesses as such has become considerably more skeptical; however, those early, formative experiences helped me recognize my interests, strengths, and the value I could offer, namely, in understanding the law, anticipating how it would apply, and how that could prove of use to others in removing hurdles to their proper goals.

After handling both plaintiff and defense-side cases involving all manner of employment law, employment law captured my interest. Compared with commercial litigation (my first inclination), I saw that labor and employment would allow me to merge my passion for litigation with my desire to provide meaningful day-to-day advice and counsel. Representing both employees seeking justice and employers defending against claims provided me with a comprehensive understanding of employment disputes from all perspectives. What began as an intellectual curiosity developed into expertise through deliberate self-directed learning and hands-on experience across nearly all labor and employment law areas.

My approach to practicing law and the solutions I offer and implement are based on my independent judgment as a legal professional and my verifiable knowledge of the law and ability to apply it. It did not take much to realize that this could only occur in a context where I was free to do so. Once I had gained sufficient experience and a track record on which I could objectively justify my confidence in my abilities, establishing my practice was a necessary next step. All facets of my practice, legal and business, are based on what I decide, which places me in the most competitive legal services market and enables me to provide the highest value in exchange.

I take a long-term view of my clients’ interests in rendering advice and counsel. When I prepare written policies, contracts, and handbooks for employers, I want these documents to reflect the fundamental priorities of their business. When I represent employees seeking redress for workplace violations, I leverage my understanding of how employers operate to secure meaningful remedies to recover from the long-term damage inflicted by a wrongful job loss in violation of an employment contract. I want my work product and its results to hold up over time, so should you need to revisit it, it only requires minor tweaks to account for regulatory updates, or so that a judgment or settlement is one that you will be satisfied with years down the line.

In addition to the external rules and requirements all attorneys are subject to, my practice is guided by the following principles:

In litigation, my strategy is never to depend on the other party’s settling decision alone; I will always prepare to litigate the merits of my client’s case should settlement negotiations fail. Whether representing employees pursuing a violation of statutory or contractual rights or employers defending against misguided claims, if there is merit, I will move to dispose of the case on the pleadings via dismissal or summary judgment. I operate with minimal expense and overhead and use all tools and technology to work efficiently. I stay current on legal developments and engage with the political process to advocate for the principles on which I operate my practice.

I do not believe, as an attorney, that I can offer any judgment that should substitute that of my clients. For employees seeking redress for workplace violations, I focus on securing meaningful remedies. For employers, I emphasize implementation and avoiding legal exposure. I do not encourage any client to take dishonest action or infringe on the contractual rights of others. I represent both sides of employment disputes because I understand that the employer-employee relationship is not inherently adversarial, though conflicts arise requiring legal intervention. I believe it is not to the benefit of either employers or employees for the government to impose excessive regulation on private contracting parties.

I do not recycle templates for documents (except if they are my own, and only as a starting point), provide guidance that reflects anyone’s judgment but my own, or reflexively rely solely on conventional tools like disclaimers or boilerplate clauses.

I take the proper rights of all parties into account because doing so places my clients in the best possible position. Whether representing an employee claiming discrimination or an employer defending against such claims, I never advise shortcuts. My diverse practice representing both employees and employers gives me unique insight into how both sides approach employment disputes, making me a more effective advocate for all my clients.