Honors and Awards:

• Martindale-Hubbell AV® Peer Review Rated. According to Martindale-Hubbell, "an AV® certification mark is a significant rating accomplishment - a testament to the fact that a lawyer's peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence."
• Order of Barristers. The Order of Barristers is a national honor society whose purpose is the encouragement of oral advocacy and brief writing skills through effective law school oral advocacy programs. The Order seeks to improve these programs through interscholastic sharing of ideas, information, and resources. The Order also provides national recognition for individuals who have excelled in advocacy and service at their respective schools.
• James A. Wysocki Trial Advocacy Award. This award was endowed by Mrs. Christina Wysocki to honor the life of her husband, a noted trial attorney, who respected and admired Tulane trial lawyers. The fund provides cash prizes to the two students who have achieved the highest grade in Trial Advocacy, one in the fall, the other in the spring.
• Cicero C. Sessions Trial Advocacy Award. Established in 1986 by the law firm of Sessions, Fishman, Rosenson, Boisfontaine, Nathan & Winn (now Sessions & Fishman), this award is given to the students making the highest grades each semester in the course in Trial Advocacy.
• Tulane Law Senior Trial Competition Champion. The Tulane Intraschool Moot Court Competition provides students with the opportunity to individually compete against their classmates for the honor of being known as the best oral advocate in their class. The names of the top two Senior Finalists in each competition are immortalized on The Marbles in Room 110. This coveted honor is fiercely pursued by students throughout their 3L year.
• Tulane Law Moot Court Board. Tulane Moot Court is one of the largest student-run organizations on campus. Each year students of all experience levels are provided with the opportunity to work collaboratively and to sharpen their oral and written advocacy skills; skills that they will be called on to use throughout their careers, and which can only be developed through practice. The Moot Court program was founded in 1929 by a small group of Tulane Law students, including the legendary U.S. Fifth Circuit Judge, John Minor Wisdom. In fact, Tulane Moot Court is among the oldest and most visible programs of its kind in the nation; alumni include state and federal judges, members of Congress, U.S. Ambassadors, and state governors.

Special Licenses/Certifications:

• Maritime Law Certification, Tulane Law School. Tulane Law School is widely acknowledged to have the strongest maritime law program in the world. Tulane's location in New Orleans, one of the largest ports in the world, near the mouth of the Mississippi River and the outlet to the Gulf of Mexico, is a natural link to the maritime industry. New Orleans has the second largest admiralty bar in the United States. As a result of the natural focus on maritime issues in New Orleans, Tulane Law School has become a significant center for the study of maritime law. In addition to its extensive curriculum of admiralty courses, Tulane was the first law school in the United States to publish a student-edited maritime law review, The Tulane Maritime Law Journal, and it is the home of the Maritime Law Center.
• Board Certified Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. The National Board of Trial Advocacy Division of the National Board of Legal Specialty Certification was the first American Bar Association accredited attorney board certifying agency in the world. Founded in 1977, NBTA offers board certification for lawyers in Civil Trial Law, Criminal Trial Law, and Family Trial Law. NBLSC also offers board certification for lawyers in Social Security Disability Law. To qualify for one of these four certifications lawyers must have extensive experience in their specialty and meet rigorous objective quality standards.

Bar/Professional Activity:

• Mississippi State Bar Association; Louisiana State Bar Association; Texas State Bar Association; South Central Mississippi Bar Association; Hattiesburg Area Young Lawyers Association; Defense Research Institute

Pro bono/Community Service:

• Member of the Young Lawyers Division Disaster Legal Services Program.    

Verdicts and Settlements:

• COURTROOM NEWS from HarrisMartin's COLUMNS-Asbestos Date: 10 September 2009 Ky. Jury Finds for Garlock, Ford Motor in Millwright’s Case LOUISVILLE, Ky. –– After deliberating for less than one hour, a Kentucky jury has rejected a former millwright’s asbestos-related claims and returned a verdict in favor of Garlock Sealing Technologies and Ford Motor Co., sources told HarrisMartin. , No. 01-CI-01344 (Ky. Cir. Ct., Jefferson, Div. 8).   Jurors reached the verdict Aug. 17 after a two-week trial in Judge A.C. McKay Chauvin’s Jefferson County, Division 8, Circuit Court. Plaintiff James Rehm sought damages for wrongful death, pain and suffering and loss of earnings, sources said. In 1977, Rehm began a three-and-a-half year stint as a millwright for Rapid Installations Inc., where he worked at various plants removing insulation pipe and installing conveyor systems. Rehm testified that he tore out thermal system insulation and spray-on insulation at more than 20 worksites. He also recalled working with Garlock gaskets, sources said. After working as a millwright, Rehm was employed by a number of elevator companies for 20 years. While Rehm claimed to have not been exposed to asbestos during this time, the defendants argued during trial that the plaintiff was in fact exposed to asbestos while working on the elevators, citing medical records and a statement Rehm made to a claims adjuster handling a workers’ compensation claim Rehm filed against his employer. During trial, the defendants asserted a number of arguments to refute the claims, including that Rehm was exposed to amphibole asbestos-containing insulation; that he was exposed to a low dose of asbestos from gaskets and further that the asbestos in the gaskets was chrysotile asbestos; and that the OSHA-mandated warnings on Garlock’s products at the time of Rehm’s alleged exposure were sufficient. Ford Motor also challenged Rehm’s identification of work he claimed to have done at a Ford Motor Co. plant. The defendant cited newspaper articles that contradicted the plaintiff’s testimony, according to sources. Testifying on behalf of the plaintiffs were William Ewing, CIH; Ronald Dodson, Ph.D.; Dr. Samuel Hammar; and William Baldwin, Ph.D. Testifying on behalf of Garlock were Donna Ringo, CIH and Dr. James Crapo. Ford Motor Co. called Dr. Robert Morgan, physician and epidemiologist to testify. Counsel for the plaintiffs were Joseph Satterly and Kenneth Sales of Sales & Satterly in Louisville, Ky. Garlock Sealing Technologies was represented by Chris Massenburg and Max Swetman of Swetman Baxter Massenburg, LLC in Hattiesburg, Miss. Ford Motor Co. was represented by Byron Miller and Adam Shadburne of Thompson Miller & Simpson in Louisville, Ky.     Copyright Note: This article was reproduced from the HarrisMartin Publishing Web site at www.harrismartin.com. While dissemination of this article via e-mail, fax or regular mail -- provided it has not been altered in any fashion -- is permitted, dissemination of multiple articles through any medium is prohibited without express consent from HarrisMartin. HarrisMartin Publishing · 900 W. Sproul Road, Suite 101 · Springfield, PA 19064-1253 (800) 496-4319 · www.harrismartin.com · service@harrismartin.com Rehm, et al. v. Navistar International Corp., et al.   , 2009
• COURTROOM NEWS from HarrisMartin's COLUMNS-Asbestos Date: 15 June 2009 Verdict for 4 Defendants Reached in South Carolina Case GREENVILLE, S.C. –– A South Carolina jury has rejected claims asserted on behalf a former machinist mate who allegedly developed pleural mesothelioma after working with asbestos-containing insulation, gaskets and packing, sources told HarrisMartin. Lenz v. Allis Chalmers Corp., et al. , No. 2008CP2309194 (S.C. Ct. Comm. Pls., Greenville Cty.). After seven hours of deliberations, the Court of Common Pleas for Greenville County jury reached a verdict on June 5, finding in favor of the four defendants –– Garlock Sealing Technologies, John Crane, Viad and Elliot –– remaining in the case. The judge presiding over the trial was Larry R. Patterson. The claims were brought by Susan K. Lenz on behalf of Gary Lenz, who was a machinist mate for four years, starting in 1966. During his time on board the USS Cone, Lenz worked with asbestos-containing pumps, valves, tanks and other various pieces of equipment, as well as gaskets and packing, the plaintiffs argued. Lenz allegedly installed and removed the insulation and gaskets and packing. Shortly after his time as a machinist mate, the plaintiff said that Lenz worked at Interstate Power & Light Co., where he worked in the proximity of asbestos-containing insulation, gaskets and packing. Lenz was later diagnosed with mesothelioma. None of the four defendants were found liable for the decedent’s injuries, sources told HarrisMartin. During trial, the defendants asserted a number of arguments, including low-dose, chrysotile exposure and sophisticated user defenses. Sources said that in closing arguments, the plaintiff had asked for approximately $28.5 million and had argued that Garlock was 10 times more liable than the other remaining defendants. The plaintiff had asked for the jury to enter a punitive damages award against all the defendants. Testifying on behalf of the plaintiff were John Maddox, M.D.; Steve Paskal, CIH; James Millette, Ph.D.; Capt. William Lowell; and Richard Thompson, Ph.D., economist. Testifying on behalf of the defendants were Donna Ringo, CIH; Capt. Charles Wasson; Cmdr. Thomas McCaffery; Fred Toca, Ph.D., CIH; James Crapo, M.D.; Charles Cushing, Ph.D.; Rear Adm. Ben Lehman; and William Dyson, Ph.D., CIH. Counsel for the plaintiffs were Jeffrey Simon and Jessica Dean of Simon, Eddins & Greenstone in Dallas. Counsel for Garlock were Chris Massenburg of Aultman, Tyner, Ruffin & Swetman in Hattiesburg, Miss., and Tim Bouch of Leath, Bouch & Crawford in Charleston, S.C. Bouch also represented Elliot, along with Amy Melvin of Leath, Bouch & Crawford in Charleston, S.C. John Crane was represented by Mark Tivin of O’Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns in Elgin, Ill., and James Elliott Jr. of Pritchard & Elliott in Charleston, S.C. Viad was represented by Robert O. Meriwether of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough in Columbia, S.C., and Brent Karren of Bailey Crow & Kugler in Dallas.   Copyright Note: This article was reproduced from the HarrisMartin Publishing Web site at www.harrismartin.com. While dissemination of this article via e-mail, fax or regular mail -- provided it has not been altered in any fashion -- is permitted, dissemination of multiple articles through any medium is prohibited without express consent from HarrisMartin. HarrisMartin Publishing · 900 W. Sproul Road, Suite 101 · Springfield, PA 19064-1253 (800) 496-4319 · www.harrismartin.com · service@harrismartin.com , 2009

Video:

• This is an excerpt from a prior trial. Chris Massenburg, counsel for a defendant in the case, had just delivered his closing arguments to the jury advocating that his client's products did not cause the decedent's disease. This video is of the plaintiffs attorney's arguments to the jury following Chris' closing. Remember "this case is not about Mr. Massenburg"., Closing Arguments: This case is not about Chris Massenburg , 2009

Educational Background:

• Loyola University, New Orleans, LouisianaBachelor of Business Administration, Finance (cum laude), 1997