Case Studies
I’ve particularly enjoyed working on projects with and for attorneys and law firms, and I wanted to put together some sample case studies on client outcomes to showcase my ability to write these types of projects. These fictionalized events are for the purposes of evaluation only.
These case studies demonstrates the intersection of narrative flow, marketing impact, and precise legal language. Whether you run your own practice or are part of a large firm, these projects can showcase your results and help prospective clients understand your strengths.
The following case study explores topics in product liability, third-party workplace injury claims, and catastrophic injury.
Fenwick & Delaney LLP | Client Outcome Summary
Walter Russo vs. Ironcore Toolworks
Background
In November 2024, Walter Russo reported for his shift as a concrete crew laborer on a commercial renovation site. With over two decades of experience at Shoreline Flatwork & Foundations, he relied on his experience and training to complete another productive day in an essential and increasingly understaffed trade.
Russo followed all procedures properly while operating a hydraulic rebar bender manufactured by Ironcore Toolworks. As he manually aligned a piece of rebar in the machine, it cycled unexpectedly due to a faulty safety interlock and crushed his dominant hand.
The safety interlock is meant to ensure the hydraulic system cannot cycle with the operator's hands or digits in vulnerable positions. When the safety system is compromised or faulty, though, life-changing incidents can occur through no fault of the operator.
Though Russo’s crew from Shoreline Flatwork & Foundations responded quickly, rendering first aid until an EMT unit arrived, the incident resulted in the loss of Russo’s dominant index and middle fingers and a permanent, significant reduction in grip strength.
Challenge
Shoreline Flatwork & Foundations coordinated the insurance coverage of Russo’s initial surgery, short-term physical therapy, and temporary worker’s compensation. While his employer was able to help Russo through this initial recovery phase, long-term support was not available through their workplace insurance policy. Given the severity and nature of the injury, Russo required more support for continued therapy and loss of income.
The hydraulic rebar bender manufactured by Ironcore Toolworks caused Russo’s injury, so the additional compensation he required would need to be provided by the party at fault. This particular model had a documented history of safety interlock failures, even when properly maintained and operated. With two prior OSHA complaints on record (2019 and 2020) as well as one low-profile recall issue (2021), Ironcore Toolworks was aware of the issue and failed to properly remedy the underlying defect.
When Russo decided to pursue a third-party liability claim, he turned to Fenwick & Delaney LLP based on their track record of holding large manufacturers accountable. Without legal support, Russo would have been left to face the financial and emotional consequences of his catastrophic injury without support or recourse.
Strategy
Founding Partner Erica Fenwick and Senior Attorney Patrick Martinez, a workplace injury specialist, took on the responsibility of Russo’s case. Their multi-pronged approach involved coordinating closely with independent specialists, Shoreline Flatwork & Foundations, and Ironcore Toolworks to gather the records and information needed to illuminate the case.
Fenwick and Martinez retained a mechanical forensic specialist to review and assess the rebar bender failure, determining that the safety interlock feature had failed independently from any actions Russo had taken. The specialist was even able to recreate the failure on the same machine while properly following all procedures.
Official maintenance records from Shoreline Flatwork & Foundations, including digitally timestamped photos, showed their team had performed required maintenance on the machine since it had been purchased directly from the manufacturer in 2022.
Internal complaint records obtained from Ironcore Toolworks dating back two years proved that it had been notified of the issue by numerous subcontracting companies, but had only responded with one limited recall in 2021. Our review allowed us to identify and trace back a design change prior to 2021 that eliminated a final failsafe feature from earlier models.
Shoreline Flatwork & Foundations’s dedication to workplace safety and OSHA-compliant training for all staff further solidified the case against Ironcore Toolworks. Fenwick and Martinez filed a product liability suit and applied increasing legal pressure against Ironcore Toolworks through discovery, expert analysis, and documentation. As the case progressed, Ironcore Toolworks’s legal representation agreed to enter mediation, citing concerns about reputational risks at trial.
Outcome
Three weeks before the scheduled trial, Fenwick and Martinez secured a $1.2 million settlement for Russo. These funds will enable him to step into a new phase of life with the financial security he has earned over a long career serving his local community. This support will cover future medical bills, long-term rehabilitation and physical therapy, and loss of past and projected income.
The team at Shoreline Flatwork & Foundations has offered Walter an opportunity to return to work in a light-duty supervisory role where he can put his decades of experience to use and remain with his team.
Client Testimonial
“It would have been impossible to recover and figure out how to pay for everything at the same time. I certainly didn’t want to sit through a trial. I just want to get better and move on.”
Why It Matters
When large manufacturers sacrifice safety to reduce costs, workers bear the burden. Ironcore Toolworks was aware of the design flaw causing catastrophic safety failures and chose not to address it properly. The due diligence of Fenwick & Delaney LLP uncovered the facts required to build a compelling case and avoid a trial, which reduced the burden on Russo during his recovery.
This outcome required high-level knowledge of the construction and manufacturing industries, and Fenwick & Delaney LLP brings the experience and strength to align attorneys, investigative resources, and independent specialists toward favorable outcomes, whether in mediation or trial.
The following sample highlights key issues in employment law, whistleblower protection, and disability accommodations.
Avery Windsor Law | Client Outcome Summary
Marianne Carter vs. North Valley School District
Background
New policies designed to modernize education can come with unintended consequences that disproportionately affect vulnerable students. Beginning in the fall semester of 2024, North Valley School District implemented a new oral exam policy requiring upper elementary students to complete one oral exam per semester. It aimed to improve verbal communication skills and prepare students for the demands of middle and high school, but administrators failed to account for how the policy could affect students with disabilities.
Marianne Carter, a longtime English Language Arts teacher in North Valley School District, was determined to advocate for the best interest of her students. Those requiring accommodation receive customized IEPs (individualized education plans) to enable their academic success. After 25 years working in the North Valley School District, Carter had the knowledge to foresee challenges and advocate for the best interests of her students. Without a trial period to test IEP compliance, the program immediately raised red flags for Carter. The policy clearly conflicted with the school district’s existing legal obligations to students with disabilities, particularly those with listening comprehension challenges.
As Carter prepared for the 2024 school year, one student’s IEP stood out to her. Alex Brown (name changed for privacy) required written exam instructions due to an Auditory Processing Disorder (APD). She understood the policy would put Brown at a disadvantage, but the school moved forward without any adjusted accommodations.
Challenge
Carter first raised concerns informally with the newly-appointed principal, David Sloan, who spearheaded the program with backing from well-connected officials in the North Valley School District. Sloan brushed off her concerns and told her not to “make an issue” out of the change.
A determined advocate for her students, Carter filed an official complaint outlining specific points of conflict between the new oral exam policy and Brown’s existing IEP. She received no correspondence in return. Instead, Sloan informally told Carter to let the issue go and that she wouldn’t be warned again.
Though teacher evaluations in North Valley School District typically occur at the end of each semester, newly-appointed principals perform evaluations during the first half of the semester to become better acquainted with their faculty. Sloan’s October evaluation of Carter resulted in her first negative review, which appeared retaliatory.
As teachers prepared for the first round of oral examinations in November, Carter was excluded from the staff IEP meeting and told by the group leader it was Sloan’s decision. With significant experience, she had played an integral role in accommodating students with disabilities for over two decades.
At the end of the semester, Brown struggled on his oral exam due to the policy’s shortcomings. Sloan pinned the result on Carter’s teaching, citing “failure to adapt to modern teaching strategies.” This pattern of retaliation forced Carter into early resignation to escape a toxic environment that prevented her from providing the education her students deserved.
Strategy
Managing Attorney Avery Windsor personally led the case, bringing her expertise in employment law to support Carter. With over two decades of stellar performance evaluations and a track record of successfully accommodating students with disabilities, Carter’s competence and dedication were well-established. Given Brown’s officially recorded IEP, the school’s obligations were clear.
To strengthen the case, Windsor retained an independent education specialist to evaluate Brown’s IEP against compliance standards and existing protections for teachers. With a clear pattern of retaliation against Carter, Windsor negotiated directly with the district’s counsel, avoiding a public trial while maintaining leverage for a favorable settlement.
Outcome
Avery Windsor Law successfully secured a settlement for Carter, compensating her for lost wages, lost retirement contributions, and emotional distress. Additionally, her pension eligibility was reinstated without early retirement penalties. Though North Valley School District blamed the incident solely on Sloan, denying their role in the broader issue, the resolution achieved greater oversight for special education in the district. Carter’s advocacy resulted in positive change for students like Brown, who would receive the accommodations they’re entitled to by law.
Client Testimonial
“I try to keep to myself, but this just wasn’t right. It’s too bad it had to happen this way, but I had to say something. At least I’ll be secure in retirement, but I wasn’t done teaching.”
Why It Matters
Even when school districts are able to avoid direct culpability, strategic advocacy positively impacts students and teachers. When the system fails, individuals step forward to carry the burden. Though responsibility might be deflected, Carter’s advocacy resulted in better oversight for special education. With the careful planning and decisive coordination of Avery Windsor Law, Carter will move forward with her professional pride intact and the financial stability she earned over a long career.