Global legal giant Dentons is defiant in the face of a $32 million jury verdict rendered by an Ohio jury and defends its Swiss verein structure that has helped the firm to achieve its enormous growth.
The size of the firm and the structure lead to the issue which involved an administrative judge at the US International Trade Commission making a disqualification order against Dentons in 2015 in relation to its client RevoLaze. At issue was the firm’s argument that the US branch of the firm was separate from its Canadian branch, which had represented Gap, a RevoLaze retailer who were sued for alleged patent infringement.
The disqualification resulted in litigation against the firm by RevoLaze in a case resulting in the Ohio judgment against the firm.
However, Dentons say the verdict was wrong and in a statement issued to LawFuel say they will appeal.
Dentons Statement
“We will appeal. The verdict was simply wrong. Just as our position was vindicated on appeal by the International Trade Commission, we will be vindicated on appeal in this matter. Importantly, the jury was not asked to make any determination regarding our Firm’s structure or conflicts clearance process and its decision in no way undermines the ITC’s reversal of the improper initial disqualification.
The Firm has a robust and sophisticated conflict clearing process that has enabled it to opens tens of thousands of matters every year without incident. With regard to our former client RevoLaze, we assisted it in an enforcement action in the ITC which RevoLaze itself characterized at the time as a “complete success.”
We acted properly, ethically, and consistent with our duties to our clients at all times.”
Recently on LawFuel
- Kirkland & Ellis Joins Four-Day Office Week Party (Reluctantly)The 4 Day Hard-Work Week Trend Sees Kirkland & Ellis Join Up Norma… Read more: Kirkland & Ellis Joins Four-Day Office Week Party (Reluctantly)
- Burford Capital Isn’t Just Financing Suits Anymore; It’s Trying to Own the Firm TooBurford Capital the litigation finance behemoth wants not just to bankroll lawsuits but to buy stakes in actual U.S. law firms. The move isn’t your garden-variety PE play; it’s a direct challenge to the profession’s no-capital-external-to-the-firm orthodoxy. Burford, under the ever-quotable Jonathan Molot, (pictured above) told the Financial Times he is floating a structure ripped from healthcare and accounting playbooks: split a law firm into two entities, a lawyer-owned practice handling client work, and a Managed Service Organization (MSO) holding assets and providing back‑office muscle in exchange for a cut. It’s a classic “external capital without violating ethics rules.”
- Am-Law A List – Who Climbed, Who Stalled?A-List 2025: Munger reigns, Jenner rockets, and who actually moved the needle The… Read more: Am-Law A List – Who Climbed, Who Stalled?
- FieldFisher Achieve A small Profit Gain with PEP At £1millionFieldfisher has achieved a small, three percent profit gain with its profits per… Read more: FieldFisher Achieve A small Profit Gain with PEP At £1million
- Weil IP Expansion Continues with Addition of Chris Henry and Gaby LaHatteNEW YORK, August 11, 2025: International law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP… Read more: Weil IP Expansion Continues with Addition of Chris Henry and Gaby LaHatte
