Results We Get

Defense witness testified in favor of plaintiff; judge was a former Attorney General who had lost a substantial case to Mr. Rosenblum years earlier; Appellate Court actually increased the award amount.

Unusual exhibits used in court; cause of injury evaded experts for over a decade; powerful expert witnesses

Unofficial nurses’ notes gave missing clues as to why the patient died; a psychiatrist who seemed utterly unaware of how to treat a diabetic

An extremely rare disease; no doctors were named as defendants; errors seemed to be systematic, rather than tied to one single person

Multiple hurdles involving expert witnesses; a difficult-to-disprove defense strategy

Competing arguments on whether the victim had experienced “impending doom”; a big-shot attorney who was “too large” for the case.

Unusual circumstance of the meeting, strong determination of the victim’s wife, strategic purchase of annuities provided the victim’s family far more than the initial settlement.

Compromising position of having to sue a law clerk who could have influence on our future cases.

Only 2 days to prepare and 1 day to find a key witness

Unusual character, personality, and background of the client, as well as his connection to a saintly rabbi

Tampered evidence and unethical, un-lawyer-like behavior by the defense attorney.

Effective arguing two cases, both the legal malpractice and the underlying medical malpractice.

Undertaker was the first to notice the signs of severe neglect; the State agency asked Mr. Rosenblum to reach out to the family.

Two cases 15 years apart, both for police officers injured by chairs that fell apart; defendants in the second case undermined each other during the trial, hurting their overall case.

Six other attorneys had turned the client down, her likeness was later used to promote client rights.

No witnesses to the accident; same attorneys represented both the driver and passenger

Avoided the statute of limitation defense and received 7-figure amount settlement for the client.

Seemingly rock-solid case was undermined by a judge with a conflict of interest.