Menu
  • Emil Hirsch
  • 202.965.8184
  • Share this page
Emil Hirsch

Emil Hirsch

Shareholder

Overview

Emil Hirsch is a litigator with over 40 years of trial and appellate experience. His national practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, litigation related to the health care, real estate, financial services and utility industries, bankruptcy litigation, and matters involving the administrative and constitutional law. He represents financial institutions, real estate industry participants, health care providers (including hospitals), public utilities and other public bodies, and non-profit entities. His trial experience includes cases involving business torts, breach of contract, civil RICO, securities, breach of fiduciary duty claims, directors and officers liability, fraud and administrative law issues. He has extensive experience representing clients in "bet the company" litigation.

Emil is fluent in German, Romanian, Hungarian, and Hebrew.

Experience

  • Represented a business executive named as a defendant in a libel action which arose out of a prior business relationship. Through aggressive discovery was able to determine the client’s real exposure at trial, which was far less than what the plaintiffs sought. This led to a settlement after a mediation by a retired trial judge.
  • Represents a utility company in appellate litigation over the validity of its assessment of stormwater related charges to customers who claim they receive no benefit from the client’s provision of stormwater-related services. The utility’s authority to charge such customers was challenged on constitutional and statutory grounds. A decision is pending.
  • Counsel for three §1031 exchangers in connection with claims against the officers and directors of a deficient national qualified intermediary company. The claims involved breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, waste of corporate assets, and constructive fraud. The claims were settled prior to filing suit.
  • Trial counsel for a defendant in District of Columbia litigation. The action involved claims arising out of alleged breaches of non-competition and non-interference covenants with former employees of the plaintiff corporation. Succeeded in having the court grant a directed verdict on the statutory conspiracy claim which posed the greatest dollar exposure for the clients. Both sides in this contentious litigation have appealed.
  • Represented Maryland resident in two federal district court actions in Maryland, one of which involved an unsuccessful attempt to set aside a last will and testament, a related inter vivos trust, and a Hawaii settlement agreement which was asserted as a bar to any claims.
  • Counsel for §1031 exchanger of commercial property in the state of Montana in complex dispute with the now bankrupt §1031 Landmark Exchange Services subsidiary of Landmark Financial Group. The first phase of litigation of this dispute, which was settled, took place in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division) and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case resulted in ongoing representation of the client and three additional but similarly situated parties in their capacity as creditors of the bankruptcy estate, which has already repaid 100 percent of the exchange proceeds.
  • Counsel for co-owner of a management company and the management company in a Maryland state court action in which the clients were sued for accounting fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, and tortious interference with contract. The case settled.
  • Trial counsel in a jury trial action brought by an emergency repair/remediation contracting company against a well-known Washington, DC university. The university counterclaimed for millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. A jury awarded the client its entire unpaid amount, plus prejudgment interest at 18 percent for a three-year period. The jury’s verdict on the counterclaims was entirely in the client’s favor.
  • Counsel for a public instrumentality sued for alleged noncompliance with the District of Columbia’s Freedom of Information Act (DC FOIA). A motion to dismiss the action on grounds that the DC FOIA does not apply to the client was fully briefed and is pending decision.
  • Counsel for utility company involved in complex administrative agency litigation with one of the country’s largest railroad companies. The issue in this protracted litigation is whether the customer’s ballasted railroad tracks are impervious for stormwater fee assessment purposes.
  • Represented, at least five separate times, a corporation that was sued in federal and state court under successor liability theories for the contract debts of an alleged predecessor in interest. Defeated the claims in every case.
  • Counsel for U.S. citizen whose father was kidnapped and held as a hostage for years in Lebanon. Obtained a multi-million dollar federal court judgment, which included pre-judgment interest of 4 percent of the compensatory damages award for a 30-year period. Responsible for domesticating the judgment on a Canadian province in record time. Developed the theory under which execution on the judgment was pursued in Canada.
  • Counsel for appellee in U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case in which a summary judgment was granted in the client’s favor in a successor liability contract claim.

Recognition

  • Selected for inclusion in Washington D.C. Super Lawyers, Business Litigation (2013-present)
  • AV Rated Martindale-Hubbell, Highest Peer Review Rating

Credentials

Education
  • University of Maryland School of Law (J.D., 1976)
  • University of Maryland (B.S., 1973)
Bar Admissions
  • District of Columbia
  • Maryland
Languages
  • German
  • Hebrew
  • Hungarian
  • Romanian
Court Admissions
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
  • U.S. District Court, District of Maryland

Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.