The Law Office of Edward E. Sharkey LLC is a firm of dedicated business and trial lawyers in Bethesda, MD who concentrate on business law and civil litigation.
Our business attorneys represent businesses and individuals throughout Maryland, Washington DC, and the United States in the areas of business and corporate law, commercial transactions, and civil litigation, including the litigation of business, contract, securities, pension, construction, and professional liability disputes.
Our corporate lawyers have the skill and experience to handle legal matters arising at every stage of the business life cycle, from start-up to dissolution, including the negotiation and documentation of business financing, commercial transactions, employment and non-compete agreements, sales, acquisitions, leases, and licenses.
On behalf of businesses and individuals, our trial lawyers litigate cases at all levels of federal and state court, as well as every major arbitral forum.
What makes us unique?
Our business lawyers represent some of the world's largest and best-known companies. We also, however, counsel start-ups and private businesses of all sizes. Our clients benefit from our training and experience with the most sophisticated matters, but because we are a smaller firm, they enjoy a higher level of attention and more economical fees than large firms provide.
Our business lawyers also have a depth of experience in both transactional and trial work. This is uncommon, and we foster that breadth of experience. Why does this benefit our clients? A corporate lawyer can best protect a client's interest if the lawyer knows how transactions and companies unravel during disputes. Similarly, a trial lawyer can best resolve conflict for a client if the lawyer understands the rights and obligations arising from the relevant documents. Our breadth of experience also means that business clients meet most of their legal needs by partnering with our firm.
Our Bethesda, MD based business attorneys assist clients in Maryland, Washington DC, and nationwide.
No, because you have copyrights in the original works posted there. A copyright is a property right that gives the owner the exclusive right to, among other things, reproduce and display his works of authorship. A recent action by Apple is a good reminder of an easy step you can take to have a copycat website removed or disabled.
Recently, another federal court emphasized the importance of issuing an effective "litigation hold" when a lawsuit is filed. This most recent case arose out of a dispute between a former employee and her employer, a supermarket chain. The employee, who was suing for wrongful termination, claimed that the business failed to preserve relevant evidence once it knew of the lawsuit.
We previously posted about a grocery chain that was sued for a data breach that compromised its customers’ credit and debit card information. The grocer has agreed to a settlement without a trial. In the settlement, the grocer agreed to, among other things:
The Securities Exchange Commission finally issued the long-awaited rules to govern equity crowdfunding. Under the JOBS Act, the SEC was mandated to promulgate the rules – primarily meant to protect new and unsophisticated investors from fraud – by the end of 2012. For many cash-strapped small businesses, the phrase ‘better late than never’ has never been more apropos.
Crowdfunding experts and small business advocates had previously voiced concerns that the delay in the SEC’s rulemaking process was a bad omen, signaling a potential for over-regulation and the possible neutering of the JOBS Act’s titular goal: to “Jumpstart Our Business Startups.” We are happy to report that this does not appear to be the case.
There was recently a big win for employers in litigation concerning the use of criminal and credit checks in the hiring process. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has been aggressive in suing employers to try to stop what it perceives as discriminatory use of background checks. We previously discussed the EEOC’s reasoning in this post.
In a 2009 lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for Maryland, the EEOC sued an employer, claiming that its use of criminal and credit histories in hiring had an unlawful discriminatory impact. In a recent opinion that has gained national attention, Judge Titus summarily rejected the EEOC’s claim.
In some circumstances, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) compels a business to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practices. It can be difficult for employers to figure out whether they have done enough to accommodate an employee. For example, if an employer gives a Seventh Day Adventist Saturdays off to observe Sabbath, must the employer give the employee every Saturday off? Or, is it reasonable for the employer to require the employee to work some Saturdays? Courts have not given employers clear guidance. The following are examples of differing standards controlling the same issue.