Solving Legal Problems Colors my World
I consider myself a trial lawyer first, a litigator second. I represent victims of employment discrimination, other civil rights violations (wrongful arrests, wrongful prosecutions and police brutality), and clients harmed by neglectful or dishonest lawyers. Since 1994, I have represented hundreds of individuals in these areas against some of the biggest corporations and biggest law firms, as well as agencies of the City and State of New York. You can see the results and publicity that I have obtained in many of my cases on my Victories page. In 2015 I was given the highest rating, AV Preeminent by Martindale Hubbell® That same year, I was named one of the "Best Lawyers in America," and in 2012, through 2015 I was nominated by my peers in the legal profession to be named a "SuperLawyer." (There are over 160,000 lawyers in New York State, and about 6,000 are named SuperLawyers.)
I have been asked and given educational sessions for lawyers on various issues, including opening statements, direct examination, punitive damages, as well as LGBTQ discrimination, police misconduct against transgender individuals, and Ethics and the Constitution.
got my law degree from NYU in 1993, was honored there to be elected to Law Review, and studied under many legal luminaries who shaped my thinking, including Anthony Amsterdam, Burt Neuborne, Sylvia Law, Chet Mirsky, Pamela Karlan, Sheila Birnbaum and Barry Berke. My undergraduate degree I received in history from Northwestern University, where I participated in intercollegiate debate and had two professors who made me see the world differently, Joseph Epstein and Garry Wills - two writers from the opposite sides of the political spectrum who looked at life, literature and history healthily askance. (Each gave me a B+, a grade I hated, but in retrospect I'm glad I was exposed to these thinkers at any rating.) After college, I did not want a typical job, so I traipsed and plodded an unusual eye-opening gig as a caseworker for the child-welfare agency in New York City. I worked with mostly poor families trying to stay together and receive the services to do so. After almost three years of that, I entered law school, during which I worked for a former federal Judge in San Francisco, Fern M. Smith, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Brooklyn, and the Federal Defenders in Manhattan.After getting my JD, I worked in the litigation department at a large law firm, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, LLP, where I won an award (and obtained publicity) for my Pro Bono work. Yearning for something different, I left Weil and saw the other side of the legal profession at the Legal Aid Society, Juvenile Rights Division, and practiced in Family Court in the Bronx and Manhattan. At the latter, I made frequent appearances before Judge Judith Scheindlin, aka "Judge Judy." She never embarrassed me as she does people on TV, I am lucky to say, and once told me in a moment of candor "not to be a Kunstler-like obstructionist." I think that advice was a gift though misplaced; William Kunstler was not an obstructionist - he was a criminal lawyer who knew how far he could go to protect his client. I took her advice as a signal that I should cooperate with the bench where possible, so I choose my battles but have always admired attorneys like Kunstler who went as far as he could to win for his clients. For example, soon after Judy left Family Court for Hollywood, I got her reversed on appeal: she had made one big mistake and I knew I could use it to get my client's charge dismissed or reduced. (It was in fact later converted to a misdemeanor after being sent back to the lower court). Matter of Efrain R., 228 A.D.2d 303 (First Dept.1996). Mostly owing to my curiosity and desire for freedom, after my stint at Legal Aid, I struck out on my own, and I have never (well, rarely) looked back.
In 2003, I wanted to learn what lawyers rarely learn in law school, if in their careers: how to communicate with a jury. I began to insist on taking cases to trial; I had had many trials in Family Court, but they were always before a judge. After three losses, a hung jury and two big wins, I applied and was honored to be selected to attend The Trial Lawyer's College, a three-week seminar, followed by graduate programs, in DuBois, Wyoming for experienced plaintiff's attorneys run by the renown trial lawyer, Gerry Spence. I've also attended lawyers' trial-practice programs at the National Criminal Defense College Trial Practice Institute in Macon, Georgia - where I studied with the nation's best trial lawyers - and, finally, the Upright Citizen's Brigade Theatre Improvisation Skills Program in New York, a great program for learning how to be quick on your feet - the third most important skill in a courtroom, the first two being memory and intelligence, neither of which I can demonstrate objectively; you;ll have to come to your own conclusions on that.
My teacher, Gerry Spence, with me in 2003
Gregory Antollino, Esq.
Most cases – mine or any other lawyer’s – settle, but I crave a case that I can take to trial if the client is not happy with the settlement offered. As a lawsuit comes into my office, and as it crawls into life, I think about how a jury will perceive my client and how the evidence tells a story. I imagine a closing argument, developing themes, and learning to love the case. Between 1998 and 2015, I have had two hung juries, but of the cases that did not settle and went to verdict, every jury but one that has rendered a decision in my client's favor has given my client more than what he or she (or I) expected. My winning streak was broken - at least temporarily - where I lost a hard-fought trial for discrimination against a gay man that I took to federal court in Suffolk County, even though my client had died just before trial. It was an easy decision not to give up, knowing that justice had been denied when my client got canned for telling a customer he was gay. I couldn't walk away, and decided to carry forward, despite the relative distance and the disadvantage of not having anything but a transcript to put on the stand. It was a wonderful experience because it was such a challenge. My client had lost his career over this termination. I respect the judge who tried the case, but I don't think my client's estate got justice. I am currently working on an appeal for a retrial - one that asks to expand the law for the greater protection of gay Americans. I may lose, but I would feel worse were I not to try. The ACLU and Lambda Legal are joining us in the fight. I've decided, after this, not to keep score anymore. You'll never know how hard or easy any of those cases were. Close cases go to trial. I'll win again and lose again, but to keep score is a less than meaningful piece of information in comparison to the imaginative use of skills in an environment that is supposed to be fair, but where "fair" is a subjective concept that can be stretched to fit results in a context - a lawsuit - where nobidy can predict what is going to happen, or what impediments - like my client's death - will arise along the way.
Summary judgment is usually the tool of the defense – sometimes the plaintiff – and is a mechanism that seeks to have the case decided without a jury. I have won the overwhelming majority of these motions when opposing them for my clients seeking a trial (I have lost a few & no attorney can win them all). On four occasions, I won them for my clients who wanted to hold the other side legally responsible without the jury's input - a much more difficult result to achieve, usually, especially in the areas of law I practice.
I am well versed in appeals, whether supporting them or opposing them and have listed my wins on my "Victories" page.
Check out my LinkedIn profile for more ephemera, including client reviews. here.,
This website is an attorney advertisement.