Jump to Navigation

Local Counsel

Delaware is known as the incorporation capital of the United States. It is the one state where more companies are formed than any other. It follows that a high volume of corporate, business and commercial litigation takes place in Delaware. For out-of-state lawyers, handling a case under Delaware jurisdiction is prohibited unless they associate with another lawyer who is admitted to practice here.

At Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law, we frequently work with business law attorneys across the country. We provide guidance on Delaware laws and court rules, helping to prepare lead counsel to handle their cases effectively.

Our experience exceeds 19 years and involves acting as local counsel in matters including but not limited to:

  • Business litigation
  • Commercial litigation
  • Real estate litigation
  • Employment matters

Keep in mind, Delaware has a high threshold in terms of duties and responsibilities for local counsel. Under the applicable rules, acting as local counsel is not just a formality. It involves being informed about the case as necessary to sign pleadings. We must be prepared to handle the case on our own, if necessary. We work collaboratively with those in the lead and look to them for information on updates, case progress and strategic decisions.

We have handled cases involving every facet of business and commercial law and litigation. From business formations and contract negotiations, to resolving partnership disputes and breach of contract actions, we are a full-service business firm with extensive knowledge of Delaware laws. We are the optimal choice for clients requiring local counsel services.

Wilmington Lawyers Representing Out-Of-State Clients

Contact us to discuss your business objectives and learn how we can help you reach your goals. You can reach us at 302- 529-0121 to schedule your consultation. Our office is conveniently located in the suburbs near Wilmington.

View Cases

  • Sheridan v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061 (3rd Cir. 1996) (en banc) (Plaintiff's jury verdict and the "pretext only" paradigm for proof of intentional discrimination established).
  • Hawkins v. Division of State Police, et al., C.A. No. 99-297-SLR (Religious discrimination case which successfully obtained an offer of judgment and caused the State to stop using the MMPI-1.
  • Miller v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., C. A. No. 01-827-JJF (D.Del. 2003) (Race Discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Panaro v. J.C. Penny, Inc., C.A. 01C-02-010 JOH, 2002 WL 130692 (Del. Super. 2002)(In a personal injury case, admission into evidence of direct examination of deceased deponent/plaintiff does not.
  • Price, et al. v. L. Aaron Chaffinch, et al., C.A. No. 04-956-GMS, 2006 WL 1313178 (D.Del. 2006) (First Amendment Retaliation, Petitions Clause and Defamation Claims survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Reyes v. Freebery, 141 Fed. Appx. 49 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) remanding to District Court to explain its restrictions on the public's right to access to judicial records and counsel's First Amendment.
  • Underwood v. Sear Roebuck and Co., 343 F.Supp.2d 259 (D.Del. 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Shotzberger v. State of Delaware Dept. Of Correction, 2004 WL 758354 (D.Del. Jan. 30, 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgement).
  • Stull v. Thomas S. Neuberger, P.A., 2003 WL 21481016 (Del. Super. Febr. 28, 2003) (Effect of Delaware accord and satisfaction law on a contract for legal services).
View More Cases

Case Evaluation Form

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Review Us