His litigation and trial experience includes complex civil litigation matters involving contract disputes, all variety of business torts, employment law matters, intellectual property, and alleged violations of the Federal False Claims Act.
An experienced first chair trial lawyer, he has conducted more than 150 bench and jury trials. He also defends corporations from Federal Trade Commission and Food and Drug Administration enforcement actions. Over the last several years, Kip has been particularly involved in litigation involving shareholder rights in closely held corporations and breaches of fiduciary duties.
Kip’s conflict resolution skills have been on display in numerous mediations, arbitrations and other forms of alternative dispute resolution. Kip is an AAA-trained mediator, and specializes in employment law and commercial disputes.
In the 1980s, Kip served as a trial attorney for the Federal Trade Commission, leading federal court litigation teams responsible for prosecution of civil fraud cases. He also served as corporate counsel and vice president of Barr Laboratories, Inc., a publicly held pharmaceutical company, and managed litigation for the company. Kip was most recently a partner at Thompson Hine LLP’s Washington, DC office and subsequently Schwartz & Associates.
Kip has extensive experience as a first chair trial lawyer in a wide range of complex civil litigation matters. Kip’s representative experience is highlighted below:
- As lead counsel, secured an important victory for the then-emerging e-cigarette industry by turning back the FDA’s attempt to regulate e-cigarettes as a new drug.
- As lead counsel, represented Washington, D.C. universities in employment discrimination cases.
- As lead counsel, represented Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in employment discrimination cases.
- As lead counsel represented New York Life Insurance Company in a wrongful discharge and employment discrimination case.
- As lead counsel, represented MAI Systems Corporation in a reported case, ACS Computers Inc. et al v. MAI. The case made new copyright law, insofar as independent service technicians were deemed to have committed an act of copyright infringement simply by loading MAI’s proprietary operating system software into random access memory of the computer, thereby making an infringing “copy.”
- As lead counsel, represented Amtrak in a number of commercial disputes.
- Advanced Computer Science of Michigan, Inc., et al. v. MAI Systems Corporation, 845 F. Supp. 356 (E.D. Va.)
- Newport News Shipbuilding Inc., et al. v. Dynamic Testing Inc.
- American Bar Association – Litigation, Employment and Dispute Resolution Sections
- Member of Citizens Association of Georgetown
- Represented local Neighborhood Association in efforts to stop major intrusive development project
May 16, 2013
Kaufman & Company, as lead counsel for the property owners’ counterclaim and third-party claims, obtained a favorable recovery in a settlement on behalf of two clients — a family-owned local business owning commercial property and a family-owned local outdoor advertising business — in a multi-party lawsuit that included complex and novel eminent domain issues. The litigation arose after a landslide occurred on the clients’ commercial property during a government project performed by the sewer district and its hired contractors, which caused significant damage to the land and a billboard owned by the outdoor advertising client. The Northeast Ohio Sewer District had entered the property without any valid contractual or other legal right to enter. Kaufman & Company prosecuted the property owners’ trespass and negligence claims against the sewer district’s contractors as well as a contractor that performed work previously on the property. In addition, Kaufman & Company prosecuted the property owners’ “inverse condemnation” claim against the sewer district, upon which the firm successfully compelled the sewer district to commence an eminent domain action to determine just compensation for “taking” the clients’ property. Kaufman & Company’s efforts resulted in denial of dispositive motions by the defendants on all these claims, and its clients also prevailed on numerous, hotly contested evidence motions in limine. During jury selection, a favorable settlement was reached on both clients’ claims.
Breach of Contract
New York Law School (J.D., 1980)
Hamilton College (B.A., 1975) (B.A., 1972)
District of Columbia
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
U.S. District Court, Maryland
U.S. District Court, E.D. New York
U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
U.S. District Court, W.D. New York
U.S. District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
U.S. District Court, S.D. Texas
U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Claims