The outcome of a trial is not always the final word.
When a significant judgment is entered, the appellate process can determine whether a victory is preserved, a costly result is overturned, or an important legal principle is established for years to come.
Dorwart represents financial institutions, energy companies, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and individuals in appellate courts throughout the country. Our lawyers handle appeals involving complex commercial disputes, constitutional issues, financial services litigation, fiduciary duty claims, arbitration disputes, and energy-related matters in state and federal courts.
Why Clients Hire Dorwart
Appellate advocacy is fundamentally different from trial work.
Success often depends on identifying the controlling legal issue, simplifying complex records, anticipating how appellate courts will view broader legal consequences, and presenting arguments that withstand scrutiny at the highest levels.
Clients rely on Dorwart because we understand both the legal and practical consequences of appellate outcomes. We focus not only on winning appeals, but also on protecting business objectives, preserving favorable judgments, and minimizing operational disruption.
Effective appellate advocacy requires more than identifying trial court errors. The strongest appellate arguments often focus on broader legal principles, practical consequences, and the policy implications that may influence how courts interpret and apply the law.
Dorwart helps clients evaluate not only the likelihood of success on appeal, but also the strategic and business implications of appellate decisions.
Experience Through Every Stage of a Case
For our appellate matters that originate from cases we handled at the trial level, we bring continuity, efficiency, and institutional knowledge to the appellate process. For appellate matters that we did not handle at the trial level, we bring a fresh perspective, mastering the record quickly and identifying the issues most likely to drive the outcome on appeal.
In each instance, we understand the facts, the record, the business issues, and the strategic objectives that led to the appeal in the first place. That perspective often provides a significant advantage when important judgments, legal rights, and business interests are on the line.
Dorwart represented energy-industry clients seeking to recover $5 million spent plugging and abandoning oil wells on Native lands in Alaska after a foreign businessman and affiliated entities failed to honor their obligations.
The trial court acknowledged that Alaska had a substantial interest in the dispute but nevertheless applied Delaware’s significantly more restrictive veil-piercing standard. That ruling effectively insulated the individual defendant from personal liability despite evidence that the company operated without meaningful capitalization, corporate records, banking relationships, or the ability to satisfy its obligations.
Dorwart challenged the trial court’s choice-of-law analysis and argued that Alaska law, not Delaware law, should govern the veil-piercing claims. The appeal required addressing a significant unresolved legal issue with implications extending beyond the immediate dispute, and urging the Alaska Supreme Court to adopt a minority rule of law followed in only a small number of jurisdictions in veil-piercing cases nationwide.
In a published opinion (566 P.3d 252), the Alaska Supreme Court agreed with Dorwart’s reasoning and reversed the lower court’s approach, establishing an important precedent governing choice-of-law analysis in veil-piercing cases under Alaska law.
The decision not only advanced our clients’ interests but also established legal guidance that will influence future corporate liability disputes throughout Alaska.
Additional Representative Matters
Preserving Oklahoma Tourism Improvement District Authority
Represented a hotel owner in an appeal involving interpretation of the Oklahoma Improvement District Act and the validity of a locally created tourism improvement district. Successfully obtained reversal of the lower court’s ruling, preserving an important economic-development tool for municipalities throughout Oklahoma. Toch, LLC v. City of Tulsa, 474 P.3d 859 (Okla. 2020). BOKF, NA v. Estes, 923 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2019).
Financial Institution Prevails in FINRA Arbitration Jurisdiction Appeal
Represented a national financial institution in an appeal involving whether it could be compelled to arbitrate securities-related claims before FINRA despite lacking any agreement to arbitrate with the claimants. Successfully obtained reversal of the district court’s denial of injunctive relief, allowing the client to defend itself in federal court rather than a forum to which it never agreed.
Arbitration Enforcement Appeal
Represented a national financial institution in an appeal involving the enforcement of arbitration obligations against a non-signatory affiliate. Successfully established that claims against both entities should proceed in arbitration, preventing inconsistent outcomes and parallel litigation.
Experience and Insight for your most complex legal matters
