David K. Bissinger - Lawyer in Houston, TX

Yourlawyer should know the courtroom (and, for many business disputes, full-blownarbitration hearing action) if you want to know the worth of your case. Yet manylawyers have little or no trial experience. I have that experience? in adiverse array of matters, including energy and technology, corporate fiduciary,securities, executive compensation, banking, and real estate. Nothing but trialwork sharpens a lawyers professional judgment, handling of hard questions, oraccountability to clients.

Recent case highlights:

Prosecution of large-scale trade secrets and fiduciary duty case. Represented major international engineering company in prosecution oftrade secrets and fiduciary-duty claims against former senior executive andthat employees new employer. Case involved numerous complex transactions andacts of theft, including international contract bids, massive digitaldownloads, and highly sensitive strategic corporate transactions. Our clientsformer executive acquired numerous trade secrets and corporate confidences anddisclosed them to new employer as he negotiated favorable compensation packagewith new employer. After obtaining temporary restraining order, temporaryinjunction, fast-track trial setting, six months of discovery, and favorablerulings denying defendants motions for summary judgment, the case settledconfidentially the weekend before jury selection.

Jury verdict in commercial real estate case. After a week-long jury trial, obtained a jury verdict of $1 million forplaintiff tenant for damages against defendant landlord. Jury found thatlandlord breached promises in lease, including promises not to unreasonablywithhold consent to tenants proposed assignment to comparable commercialtenant. Award represented 100 percent of damages requested.

Arbitration award for patent infringement law firm. Recovered substantially all relief sought for law firm cheated out ofcontingent fee from settlement of patent-infringement litigation. The law firmhad successfully tried to verdict and through appeal a major case for thepatent holder, but the patent holder had filed a separate case against the samedefendant that had sat dormant because, as we proved in the arbitration, theseparate case had no merit. The patent holder negotiated a settlement with thedefendant that allocated the vast majority of the proceeds to the groundlessseparate case. This allocation favored the patent holder because it minimizedthe fee otherwise payable to our client. The arbitrator agreed that theseparate case had little to no value, and award our client more than $2.6million, including attorneys fees, noting that Mr. Bissinger did an excellentjob for his client (as did all counsel herein) in a complex matter involvingvaluation of patent infringement claims and several legal theories.

Favorable verdict for defendant accused of theft. In a highly contested and complex case involving allegations of breachof fiduciary duty, theft, and fraud, we defended a financial executive whoseformer employer threatened him not only with a claim that not only would havewiped out his personal fortune, but also with criminal prosecution. Theemployer alleged theft of cash, leading to an error-ridden forensic audit. Ourprobing discovery led to evidence that other senior managers participated in avariety of overrides of the companys internal controls. After a month-longtrial, the jury awarded our client more money than it awarded to his formeremployer. Although the jury found breach of fiduciary duty and theft occurred,they declined to find fraud. The jury also declined to find clear andconvincing evidence of our clients breach of fiduciary duty and theft.Moreover, the jurys verdict included an award of punitive damages in favor ofour client based on the jurys finding that the employer had violated the Texaswiretapping statute during its poorly executed forensic audit. The jury alsoawarded our client actual damages based on his counterclaims for the employersrefusal to pay deferred compensation and monies our client had loaned hisemployer. Although the court disregarded some of the jurys findings, the jurysent a clear message that the employer had overreached. The jurys verdict andcourts final judgment kept our client from any criminal prosecution, as wellas the catastrophic damages (both actual and punitive) the company sought. Thecase ultimately settled confidentially.