Hamilton Law Firm provides in-house counsel services for companies that either do not have internal legal support or wish to augment their existing in-house legal resources. Ayesha and her team handle all of the legal work for each of her clients. She gives each client her full attention without delegating the critical judgment and experience that is key to a positive outcome.
The firm handles business-related matters across a wide range of areas, including the purchase and sale of practices, acquisition of new offices, lease negotiations, vendor and distribution agreements, equipment leases, real estate sales and purchases, and partnership and associate agreements.
The firm counsels clients on how to handle problem employees, complaints of discrimination or harassment, partnership disputes, terminations, or discipline. Hamilton Law Firm also drafts personnel handbooks, employment agreements, separation agreements and restrictive covenants. In addition, the firm handles employment defense negotiations and litigation, and offers litigation support to in house counsel.
Typical Hamilton Law Firm Cases
Employee Forced Company to Pay Overdue Commissions
ISSUE: Employee worked in sales for a medium sized merchant services company and was hired for her substantial contacts in the industry. She was to receive a base salary and commission on all new accounts generated by her. Employee generated a substantial amount of new business based upon her personal contacts. When the company did not pay her commissions on schedule, the employee inquired into the delay, and a few weeks later, was terminated
PROCESS: Ayesha Hamilton, Esq. initiated negotiations with the employer, who was unwilling to pay a fair amount without litigation. The Hamilton Law Firm drafted a comprehensive federal court complaint that highlighted the details of the commission agreement, the basis for the employee’s claims, and the scope of the damages being sought against the company.
RESULT: Ayesha Hamilton, Esq’s passionate, fact based and objective advocacy at the first conference with the Judge resulted in the scheduling of a settlement conference where the matter was settled to the client’s satisfaction. The company was required to pay a large monetary settlement and the client was spared the trauma of a lengthy and upsetting litigation.
Franchisee Negotiated A Commercial Lease That Compiled With The Franchise Agreement And the Mall Developer’s Objectives.
ISSUE: A Franchisee was looking to open a new location for their business in a yet-to-be-built strip mall. The negotiated parties would include the developer, franchisor, and franchisee. The franchisee agreement stipulated what types of businesses could be adjacent to the client’s business. The franchisee and franchisor also wanted the developer to provide environmental testing and indemnification defense to environmental issues after testing.
PROCESS: Hamilton Law Firm managed negotiations with the franchisor and the developer for the franchisee with all concerned parties. By respecting and understanding the other parties’ objectives, while also effectively advocating for her client, Hamilton Law was able to navigate to the legal middle ground that was acceptable to all concerned parties.
RESULT: The franchisor relaxed the lease terms so that the developer would have more leeway for bringing other types of businesses to the strip mall, and the developer agreed to provide environmental testing and provide indemnification defense to environmental issues after the testing.
Franchisee can open a new location while remaining in compliance with franchise agreement:
Issue: A franchisee was looking to open a new location for their business in a yet-to-be-built strip mall. The developer was going to build the facility from the ground up, so the negotiating parties would include the developer, franchisor and franchisee. The franchise agreement included terms that stipulated what types of businesses could be adjacent to the client’s business. The franchisee and franchisor also wanted the developer to provide environmental testing and provide indemnification defense to environmental issues after the testing. The franchisee contacted Hamilton Law Firm for assistance.
Process: Hamilton Law Firm managed negotiations with the franchisor and the developer for the franchisee through numerous emails and phone conferences, with all concerned parties. By respecting and understanding the other parties’ objectives, while also effectively advocating for her client, Ayesha was able to navigate to the legal middle ground that was acceptable to all concerned parties.
Result: The franchisor relaxed the lease terms so that the developer would have more leeway for bringing other types of businesses to the strip mall, and the developer agreed to provide environmental testing and provide indemnification defense to environmental issues after the testing.
Successful defense strategies applied to company sued for discrimination:
Issue: A medium-sized company received a claim for discrimination by a former employee. The company did not have employment practices liability insurance (EPLI) and came to the Hamilton Law Firm to handle their defense.
Process: Ayesha Hamilton, Esq., sat with the clients to understand the facts of the case, to develop litigation strategies, and to identify the issues, witnesses and argument strategies. Ayesha Hamilton, Esq., served as trial counsel and conducted depositions, obtained expert opinions and reports, and handled all phases of the discovery and litigation process.
Results: Ayesha’s pre-litigation strategy resulted in the EEOC issuing a “no cause” letter. However, despite the same, the employee sought to file suit in state court. Ms. Hamilton’s defense strategies during depositions, mediation and the course of the case resulted in a very favorable settlement for the company.
Protected minority shareholders from fraud and embezzlement:
Issue: Following a request by managing members of a company for additional capital infusion, the minority members discovered embezzlement and fraud by the managing members. One of the minority members had also guaranteed a company loan from a bank.
Process: Ayesha Hamilton, Esq., filed suit against the managing members, conducted extensive and detailed document discovery, coordinated a forensic accounting and expert report of the company finances, and took depositions of the managing partners that revealed many inconsistencies and misrepresentations. Simultaneously, Ms. Hamilton also negotiated a settlement with the bank on the personal guarantee.
Results: The minority members were able to successfully settle their claims against the managing members. The guarantor member was able to settle with the bank. The matter resolved to the satisfaction of the minority members following the tough litigation position taken by Ayesha Hamilton, Esq.
Policies and training created to improve physician-employee relations:
Issue: A physician was concerned because one of his nurses was on their cellphone almost constantly checking texts and social media while on duty. The nurse’s distracted behavior was making a bad impression on his patients, and so the physician wanted to terminate this employee. There was no human resource professional on staff, so the physician sought help from Hamilton Law Firm for advice on how to proceed.
Process: In conversations with the physician, Hamilton Law Firm learned that the physician had no employee handbook or HIPPA training to address cellphone use in the workplace. The firm encouraged the physician to create an employee handbook and provide training regarding cellphone use. The physician also created a process to document any disciplinary actions taken so that further employee decisions could be made with confidence, if necessary. Hamilton Law Firm emphasized that, throughout the process, it was of utmost importance to treat the individual with respect, or risk getting sued.
Result: Using this common-sense, process-driven approach to employee management, the physician has improved their relationship with that employee and generally improved his employee management. Through this process, the employee in question was able to turn the situation to the positive, so no further action was required.